Am So, 6.10.2013, 15:39 schrieb Thomas Martitz: > > > Lex Trotman <ele...@gmail.com> schrieb: >>On 6 October 2013 22:21, Thomas Martitz < >>thomas.mart...@student.htw-berlin.de> wrote: >> >>> Am 03.10.2013 02:00, schrieb Lex Trotman: >>> >>> >>>> Is there a problem with this approach? >>>> >>>> >>>> That means when the minimum version of GTK is increased we will have >>to >>>> upgrade to version of Glade that supports the new widgets that come >>with >>>> the new GTK. And then apply the fixes. So along with lack of >>windows >>>> maintenance (please lets deprecate it) we now have Glade upgrade >>issues >>>> slowing the movement of GTK versions. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Ok I see you try to avoid anything which could possible mean more >>> maintenance work, even if only in theory :) >>> >>> Anyway, the glade version needs only to be updated if we also make >>use of >>> newer widgets _and_ don't implement them programmatically. This seems >>like >>> a very rare event, and even then applying fixes is as easy as git >>rebase. >>> For the vast majority of time our set-in-stone, fixed Glade can be >>used >>> without extra effort. >>> >>> But you need to see it from another POV: Doing this enables us, and >>more >>> importantly new and fresh contributors, to use Glade for the Geany >>UI. This >>> clearly outweighs the very little extra maintenance effort. And I >>would >>> argue that this even reduces maintenance effort overall since we >>don't have >>> to worry about geany.xml anymore. >>> >>> >>Well, I am wondering how much change is going to happen to the UI >>within >>the life of Geany on 2.x? But if you think there are major changes to >>be >>made then I understand the attraction of using Glade rather than >>editing >>XML (shudder). >> >>Its not just using different versions either, some versions of Glade >>seem >>to delight in producing noise no matter how little you do :( >> >>So I guess the first step would be for you to identify a Glade version >>that >>produces a file that both GTK2 and GTK3 Geany correctly read and that >>doesn't produce lots of noise each change. Then you need to make the >>modifications you mentioned. >> >>Without knowing that such a Glade exists the whole question is >>theoretical >>:) >> >>If it exists then its certainly a possible solution. >>
I forked glade at github and made two fixes to it: [1] - fixed the unstable output (mostly) - fixed stripping of "icon-name" attribute of GtkIconFactory. It's still not editable in the GUI but it glade at least shouldn't remove it anymore from existing XML Seeing that 3.8.x is maintained actively at upstream I will try to get the changes upstream. For the first fix I already opened [2]. Please see if it makes glade usable for us. It worked in my (limited) testing. Best regards. [1] https://github.com/kugel-/glade/tree/glade-3-8-fixes [2] https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=709609 _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.geany.org https://lists.geany.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
