Rename in place

Submitted by Mathias Brodala

Assigned to Jannis Pohlmann

Link to original bug (#3468)

Description

User-Agent: Opera/9.22 (X11; Linux i686; U; de) Build Identifier:

Thunar’s renamer dialog for single files is no good solution in regard to usability.

It forces you to move your focus from the actual place where you want the action to happen (the icon) to another one (the dialog) and find your starting point again afterwards. This is bad. Thus, the renaming should happen in place.

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:

1. Rename a single object

Actual Results:
The renaming dialog pops out.

Expected Results:
The icon label should become editable and highlight the current file name just as the dialog currently does.

Version: 0.8.0

Lionel Le Folgoc closed a related bug:

*** Bug 4774 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Harald Judt closed a related bug:

*** Bug 11691 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Harald Judt said:

The rename dialog has been improved in recent versions. Closing this as won't fix.

Mathias Brodala said:

While the original issue hasn't been fixed, after having used it for a few years (time sure flies by) I actually prefer the dialog-based renaming since it provides a central and reliable location for renaming. The same thing cannot be achieved with inline renaming.

Harald Judt said:

Then we have made the same experience. Having mainly used windows explorer before switching to linux, i got used to this much more and now find it more reliable than inline renaming. No accidental initiation of renaming by clicking at the wrong place.

Mathias Brodala said:

You nailed it. :-)

Andreas K. said:

Sorry, but I don't second that. Getting used to something else isn't an argument for not improving on or at least considering a new feature.

It's like getting used to wash your dishes in the sink vs a dishwasher...is the dishwasher really a no-go only because you managed 10s of years with the sink?

Features may have been improved - the sink's plug may now be made of shiny metal rather than rubber - but it's still a sink...

Sure, the rename dialog is fair enough for renaming one single file. Very much 90's, but ok'ish. To rename multiple files in a row, inline renaming is much more convenient, though.

Rename the file, arrow down, the next file is selected already in inline renaming mode and you can instantly start typing and/or CTRL+V'ing. And arrow down to the next.

Even skipping over files is fine this way, they are briefly marked for inline renaming but you just arrow down further.

Renaming multiple files with Thunar - when the renamer tool won't work, as the renaming pattern isn't anything you can cover there - is a pain in the b*tt.

Don't get me wrong, I'm hanging to the things I got used to as well. The biggest ever thing I am missing on Linux is Directory Opus. This is THE masterpiece of file managers and there is nothing on Linux that even comes close. Which is a shame. I only found it for Windows, though, as I knew and loved it back from my Amiga days (that lasted way into the 2000's) and installed it more by the name than by any features that I knew of...

Theo Linkspfeifer said:

Reopening due to bug 16781.

Alexander Schwinn @alexxcons said:

Note that suggestion of Bug #16781 is not a direct in-place renaming, but a nautilus-like rename window, directly attached to the file-icon.

mentioned in issue #413 (moved)

added 2. Feature 5. Dialogs labels

Things mentioned by Andre K. already work now .. so that is no valid reason to use in place renaming.

However I find it distracting to get a popup window at some "random" place during rename ... So

closing in favor of #419 which takes car on that aspect.

closed

mentioned in issue #419

mentioned in issue #443 (closed)

mentioned in issue #622 (closed)

mentioned in issue #684 (closed)

mentioned in merge request !369 (merged)

mentioned in issue #1340

mentioned in merge request !451 (merged)

mentioned in issue #1529 (closed)

mentioned in issue #1585 (closed)

mentioned in issue #1586 (closed)

marked #1586 (closed) as a duplicate of this issue

marked this issue as related to #1586 (closed)