> Hum, has this been resolved? I admittedly didn't read everything, but we > definitely at the very least need to bump ABI (even if indeed it's not a > perfect solution).
Agree we should bump ABI, it's better than nothing. > IMO, @elextr's idea of rejecting older APIs altogether is not a bad one. It's > a bit annoying on plugin authors, but I totally agree with @elextr that it's > entirely unacceptable that we might happily load plugins that are buggy not > because they are not written correctly, but because they have not been > updated to be compatible. I think we ought to find a fix, even if it's > inconvenient. (and yes, I know bumping ABI isn't actually enough to be safe). This is something I would suggest doing if the problem affected many plugins. But the only plugin affected by this change (after we made scintilla wrappers behave the same way as before) in geany-plugins can be fixed by this simple patch: https://github.com/geany/geany-plugins/pull/1154 Of course, there may be other plugins in the wild we don't know about but I don't think many of them use this particular API or they use the `sci_` wrappers. So IMO, while not perfect - making the `sci_` wrappers behave as before (done) - applying https://github.com/geany/geany-plugins/pull/1154 - bumping ABI should be sufficient and I don't think we'll be bombed by bug reports about crashing plugins because of this problem. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/geany/geany/issues/3095#issuecomment-1442361640 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: <geany/geany/issues/3095/[email protected]>
