Follow-up Comment #2, bug #18196 (project freeciv):
I started looking at this... but it's surprisingly fiddly and I'm wondering,
is it really worth proactively splitting the options the way we have?
The set of options and their defaults are currently identical, and for many of
them, I can't see Gtk3 client diverging sufficiently that different values
become necessary (maybe I just lack imagination).
Most of the checkbox options (e.g., map_scrollbars, chatline_autocompletion)
seem safe to share indefinitely. Perhaps the default_theme_name does warrant
splitting. I could also see a case for splitting sizes and maybe fonts if we
were being conservative.
You could argue that for most users, they will one day move from gtk3 to gtk2
and never move back (or move back immediately), so it doesn't matter if the
settings diverge. But by the same token, the risk that a single setting has
different optima for gtk2/3 and by sharing it we force someone to reset it
every time they switch clients seems minimal.
At some point the gtk3 client is likely to get new features that will not be
backported (e.g., zoom). Any settings associated with them can be labeled
gui_gtk3_*; there's no migration issue there.
What do people think?
(In the minimal implementation of my proposal, options would still be named
gui_gtk2_* but not be gtk2-specific. If that really bothered us, we could
arrange to rename them to gui_gtk_* when read in from a 2.3 rc. That would
probably still be easier than handling this migration well.)
(There wasn't much discussion in patch #2701, so that doesn't help me.)
Reply to this item at:
Message sent via/by Gna!
Freeciv-dev mailing list