On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Lex Trotman <[email protected]> wrote:
> From your previous post... > > > And i believe that such a use-case lies in the realm of gnome-text-editor > instead of an IDE. IDEs are (traditionally) designed to manage specific > source-based projects, not OS-wide collections of arbitrary trees. > > Thats a very narrow view of what an IDE is/can be used for. The > characteristics of an IDE encompass many more features than how they > manage trees, and those features are not just the prerogative of > "professional" programmers, it isn't reasonable to use Geany as open > source software and say that its features shouldn't be available to > other open source projects, however they are organised, and even if > If it's not geared towards development then it shouldn't be called an IDE (Integrated Development Environment), but a Project Management tool (which is going a bit far, i think, seeing that a project is simply a list of open files) or "Glorified Editor". Geany is filled to the brim with software-development-specific features - it is unequivocally an IDE, and IDEs are for managing source projects. Source projects are, almost without exception, rooted under a single directory (perhaps consisting of several modules checked out from different sources, but that's besides the point). i say "almost without exception" because if i say "without exception" someone will prove me wrong. But in my not inconsiderable experience the term "always" is more accurate. > they don't have .geany files in their repositories. And copying a > .geany into the working tree is going to invite the attention of the > vcs. And no you can't add *.geany to the .(your vcs here)ignore file, > its under control too. > One is never forced to add a file to vcs just because svn reports a '?' next to it in 'svn status'. Yes, it's slightly annoying to have '?' show up in the status, but it's nothing new (object files show up there, too). > On 30 June 2011 20:25, Stephan Beal <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Joerg Desch <[email protected]> wrote: > > However, even if the session handling is changed to be > > per-project-file-instance (per USER would still have hosed me here), i > feel > > very strongly that having absolute paths in the project file is > > fundamentally wrong. > > Well, given that I am saying that really we shouldn't have *any* > session paths in the project file I guess we sort of agree here. Just > not about how to fix it. > Fair enough. i admit that i am a bit of a hard-liner/hard-ass on this point, but that's because i think Geany is trying to fill the "please everyone" role, and at the same time breaking this important feature for the core (99%+) market - developers who work under "rooted" software trees. -- ----- stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/
_______________________________________________ Geany mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany
