mirror of
https://github.com/qbittorrent/qBittorrent.git
synced 2026-03-02 22:57:32 -05:00
Add torrent dialog: let users add torrents in Forced state #9460
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#9460
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 @Balls0fSteel on GitHub (Dec 13, 2019).
This is like a super simple request/idea. Hopefully, not a duplicate.
Basically, it would be great if there was a checkbox in the add torrent dialog for making the new torrent have a "Forced" state. Honestly, a new button near OK would make the perfect sense - but if users have no clue what "Forced" means, the option to add a torrent forced should not be so visible.
Why / Reasoning: I have my client limited to 0.00 ratio as I don't want to seed things that I already seed elsewhere or things that have super great swarms (like Ubuntu). So whenever I add a torrent that I do actively want to seed, I add it, then right-click, "Force Resume". This works superb. But if I forget to do this, I can catch a hit and run or end up not seeding.
Just a little bit of convenience. Thank you.
Feel free to close the ticket if you see no point in adding it!
@Medvedishce commented on GitHub (Dec 15, 2019):
I suggest to add both options and make Feature requests to be linked because both make prioritization in two different ways and it preferable to have both variants:
@xavier2k6 commented on GitHub (May 24, 2025):
ANNOUNCEMENT!
For anybody coming across this "Feature Request" & would like/love to see a potential implementation in the future!
Here are some options available to you:
Please select/click the 👍 &/or ❤
reactionsin the original/opening post of this ticket.Please feel free (If you have the "skillset") to create a "Pull Request" implementing what's being requested in this ticket.
(new/existing contributors/developers are always welcome)
DO:
DO NOT:
(These will be disregarded/hidden as "spam/abuse/off-topic" etc. as they don't provide anything constructive.)