> > I'm a bit worried about having too many special cases (like doing > something else when the project file is outside the base directory, > especially when it only fixes some problems but introduces another > ones) and possibly doing unexpected things (users probably don't > expect that files start opening when they edit project properties). So > my current preference is: > > 1. Have relative paths as a global option (per-project option isn't > probably needed because every person has usually only one preferred > way of storing project files)
Ok > 2. Use full paths for files outside of the project directory (relative > paths couldn't be used for open files from other volumes) Ok > 3. Use full paths for the session file (already works this way) Ok > 4. Use relative paths against the project file (IMO using relative > paths against the base directory doesn't solve anything and it's more > logical to have all the relative paths against the file in which they > are defined) Good points, neither is a really good solution, so I don't care which you do. To maintain backward compatibility why not continue to save the absolute paths in [files] and save the relative paths in a separate group in the project file eg [files-relative]. And that way you will know which are relative paths without checking. Cheers Lex > > Cheers, > > Jiri > >> >> Cheers >> Lex >> > _______________________________________________ > Geany-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel > _______________________________________________ Geany-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
