mirror of
https://github.com/qbittorrent/qBittorrent.git
synced 2026-03-02 22:57:32 -05:00
[Wishlist] Option to always download in sequential order. #2436
Labels
No labels
Accessibility
AppImage
Bounty
Build system
CI
Can't reproduce
Code cleanup
Confirmed bug
Confirmed bug
Core
Crash
Data loss
Discussion
Docker
Documentation
Duplicate
Feature
Feature request
Feature request
Feature request
Filters
Flatpak
GUI
Has workaround
I2P
Invalid
Libtorrent
Look and feel
Meta
NSIS
Network
Not an issue
OS: *BSD
OS: Linux
OS: Windows
OS: macOS
PPA
Performance
Project management
Proxy/VPN
Qt bugs
Qt6 compat
RSS
Search engine
Security
Temp folder
Themes
Translations
Triggers
Waiting diagnosis
Waiting info
Waiting upstream
Waiting web implementation
Watched folders
WebAPI
WebUI
autoCloseOldIssue
No milestone
No project
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference
starred/qBittorrent#2436
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue
No description provided.
Delete branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Originally created by @sandrex on GitHub (May 9, 2015).
Download in sequential order is my favorite feature of qBitorrent and I always use it.
I think that would be usefull a checkbox in Tools > Configuration to make it default.
Thanks and Regards,
@ngosang commented on GitHub (May 11, 2015):
👍
@pca123123 commented on GitHub (May 11, 2015):
I agree, I use it about 95% of the time.
@ghost commented on GitHub (May 24, 2015):
Duplicate, see: #1404, #164.
But I still agree with the fact that this should be implemented at some point, perhaps with a warning about it potentially being bad for the health of the torrent.
@sandrex commented on GitHub (May 25, 2015):
LordHaruto, I see the explanation at Vuze's Wiki. However, I guess that if some algorithm could detect small swarns, slow networks and stuck downloads and then refuses the feature temporally, it would work well on a large scale. Not that I want to criticize the current algorithm. Actually it works very well even at least wanted torrents.
@slacka commented on GitHub (Aug 8, 2015):
@sledgehammer999
Please close this as it is an exact dupe of #164 without any additional information.