I don't accept that we must add (IMO heavy) configuration options like these
when all that's needed is that the user edits file A instead of B.
I expect that our target audience is perfectly capable of editing these files
when we give hints (maybe in the manual). We should not make the configuration
matrix that needs to be supported bigger than necessary.
I also don't buy that all other editors just work.
I am also highly worried that we read .bashrc ("by design") which is meant for
interactive sessions, when the proper place works already (~/.profile is
already consulted as of today).
Call me arrogant, but I'm considering the limited man power we have, and I
don't want to open a can of worms like this when it's not needed at all.
> This is crazy. You first say you want to have only selected shells
> configurable
This was under the impression that we *need* to support running commands under
zsh. But the discussion has shown that this is not the case. So I changed my
mind into "configurable shells aren't necessary at all and may even bring evil".
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/geany/geany/pull/2363#issuecomment-551085986
