Re: [Geany-devel] Glade 3 version?
[...] Also, HACKING says: Callbacks for the user-interface should go in ``src/callbacks.c``. I think this requirement should be relaxed, as having callbacks in a more relevant file means better encapsulation of functions data. Hi Nick, Good point, agree strongly. Cheers Lex ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Glade 3 version?
[...] You'll never convince me that checking in generated files is a good idea. Best we can hope for is that I'll shut the hell up about it :) Matthew, In general I agree with you, but also I see reasons for having this file committed. Because Geany releases are so far apart the only reasonable path for a user who has a problem is to get the git or daily tarball version to get the fix, or wait for ages. So not only Geany developers use the git version. Cheers Lex P.S. I will shut up about it now. Cheers, Matthew Brush ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Glade 3 version?
On 12/19/2011 05:54 AM, Nick Treleaven wrote: Hi, I tried opening data/geany.glade with the latest Glade, 3.8.1 on Windows. Pressing Save writes a lot of changes to the file, 260 Kb. It seems to be mostly reordering property tag lines for use_action_appearance. Also, when I added 2 menu items it created duplicate image ids for image1, image2. Not sure what this means. What version of Glade created the file? Maybe if I can use the same version I won't get the reordering noise in the diff. I can't remember 100% but I think it was either 3.6.x or 3.8.x. I did however just make this[1] change with 3.8.0 for sure recently. IMO, if you can't get the changes down to less, it doesn't really matter if there's a bunch of noise in the commit, it's not like anyone really needs to be able to read it, as long as the commit message describes what was changed and it's not just Windows munging the file (with \r\n, etc.). Cheers, Matthew Brush [1] https://github.com/geany/geany/commit/aaa62c39b436b7e973683c6a5551d6f5091a0ac6 ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Glade 3 version?
On 19/12/2011 14:40, Matthew Brush wrote: On 12/19/2011 05:54 AM, Nick Treleaven wrote: Hi, I tried opening data/geany.glade with the latest Glade, 3.8.1 on Windows. Pressing Save writes a lot of changes to the file, 260 Kb. It seems to be mostly reordering property tag lines for use_action_appearance. Also, when I added 2 menu items it created duplicate image ids for image1, image2. Not sure what this means. It stopped Geany from starting with an error message about image1 being defined twice. What version of Glade created the file? Maybe if I can use the same version I won't get the reordering noise in the diff. I can't remember 100% but I think it was either 3.6.x or 3.8.x. I did however just make this[1] change with 3.8.0 for sure recently. Ok, there doesn't seem to be a 3.8.0 binary for Windows. The 3.6 binary had issues on my old machine so I'd rather stay on 3.8.1. It includes a relevant fix: - Ensure 'use-action-appearance' is serialized before 'related-action' (bug 658497) This is probably the cause of 99% of the diff. IMO, if you can't get the changes down to less, it doesn't really matter if there's a bunch of noise in the commit, it's not like anyone really needs to be able to read it, as long as the commit message describes I disagree no one needs to read it. glade diffs should be reviewed by the author the same as all other code checkins IMO. I'm hoping that we can standardise on 3.8.1 so we can review diffs and also avoid adding noise/bloat to the git repo each time someone uses a different version of Glade than the last commit. Before we decided to standardise on a glade version for 2.x to prevent the same problem (although this was also because 2.x didn't have a required gtk option, different versions added a lot of diff noise anyway). what was changed and it's not just Windows munging the file (with \r\n, etc.). I always choose the default core.autocrlf(?) option for msys-git as recommended by github, and the diff was produced by git. ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Glade 3 version?
On 12/19/2011 09:37 AM, Nick Treleaven wrote: On 19/12/2011 14:40, Matthew Brush wrote: On 12/19/2011 05:54 AM, Nick Treleaven wrote: Hi, I tried opening data/geany.glade with the latest Glade, 3.8.1 on Windows. Pressing Save writes a lot of changes to the file, 260 Kb. It seems to be mostly reordering property tag lines for use_action_appearance. Also, when I added 2 menu items it created duplicate image ids for image1, image2. Not sure what this means. It stopped Geany from starting with an error message about image1 being defined twice. I'm not sure why it made duplicate IDs, but I guess we should try and start naming things properly now, at least new stuff we add. This is what I've been doing since the conversion, but there's still lots of default/crazy widget names in there :) [...] IMO, if you can't get the changes down to less, it doesn't really matter if there's a bunch of noise in the commit, it's not like anyone really needs to be able to read it, as long as the commit message describes I disagree no one needs to read it. glade diffs should be reviewed by the author the same as all other code checkins IMO. Meh, I tend to think of it as a binary blob. We can't hand-edit it and Glade is free to do whatever it wants outside of our control. What's more, the point of using Glade is to avoid having to hand code this 10,000 line XML beast. That being said (see below) if we can do something to make the commits nicer, I agree we should. I'm hoping that we can standardise on 3.8.1 so we can review diffs and also avoid adding noise/bloat to the git repo each time someone uses a different version of Glade than the last commit. I'm all for this, I can easily remove 3.8.0 and switch to 3.8.1. It does seem like 3.8.1 is the last stable release before our version of GTK+ is not supported anymore (3.10), so it makes sense and is convenient for use on Windows with a binary available. I guess we should/could note this in the HACKING file or something? rant Out of curiosity though, if we want to avoid noise/bloat in the Git repository, why don't we untrack generated files like geany.html which are already available online, in the source tarballs, and in all releases (including win32 IIRC)? The usefulness of this is pretty slim, one has to: - Be using development version of Geany from Git, and - Be unable to read a text file with the very same content, and - Have no internet access (for online manual), and - Have no release install or tarball available, and - Be unable to install a simple Python package to generate the HTML Just a thought, since I cringe just a little every time I see a commit with this file in it :) /rant Cheers, Matthew Brush ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Glade 3 version?
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 9:19 AM, Matthew Brush mbr...@codebrainz.ca wrote: On 12/19/2011 09:37 AM, Nick Treleaven wrote: On 19/12/2011 14:40, Matthew Brush wrote: On 12/19/2011 05:54 AM, Nick Treleaven wrote: Hi, I tried opening data/geany.glade with the latest Glade, 3.8.1 on Windows. Pressing Save writes a lot of changes to the file, 260 Kb. It seems to be mostly reordering property tag lines for use_action_appearance. Also, when I added 2 menu items it created duplicate image ids for image1, image2. Not sure what this means. It stopped Geany from starting with an error message about image1 being defined twice. I'm not sure why it made duplicate IDs, but I guess we should try and start naming things properly now, at least new stuff we add. This is what I've been doing since the conversion, but there's still lots of default/crazy widget names in there :) [...] IMO, if you can't get the changes down to less, it doesn't really matter if there's a bunch of noise in the commit, it's not like anyone really needs to be able to read it, as long as the commit message describes I disagree no one needs to read it. glade diffs should be reviewed by the author the same as all other code checkins IMO. Meh, I tend to think of it as a binary blob. We can't hand-edit it and Glade is free to do whatever it wants outside of our control. What's more, the point of using Glade is to avoid having to hand code this 10,000 line XML beast. That being said (see below) if we can do something to make the commits nicer, I agree we should. I agree with both of you. We shouldn't have to review generated XML, but the GUI doesn't make it easy to tell what was changed in a particular commit. Whilst it is a nice idea to reduce the noise, Glade is free to do whatever it wants. I don't agree with fixing versions of tools, we will get into the same situation we were in with Glade 2, using unsupported tools and forcing all develpers to use special installs instead of the standard ones. I'm hoping that we can standardise on 3.8.1 so we can review diffs and also avoid adding noise/bloat to the git repo each time someone uses a different version of Glade than the last commit. I'm all for this, I can easily remove 3.8.0 and switch to 3.8.1. It does seem like 3.8.1 is the last stable release before our version of GTK+ is not supported anymore (3.10), so it makes sense and is convenient for use on Windows with a binary available. I guess we should/could note this in the HACKING file or something? rant Out of curiosity though, if we want to avoid noise/bloat in the Git repository, why don't we untrack generated files like geany.html which are already available online, in the source tarballs, and in all releases (including win32 IIRC)? The usefulness of this is pretty slim, one has to: - Be using development version of Geany from Git, and Which we continualy tell people to try if they have problems - Be unable to read a text file with the very same content, and The text file doesn't open from f1 - Have no internet access (for online manual), and Many people pay for downloads, forcing them to use the online version is poor form - Have no release install or tarball available, and So long as geany.html is in the daily tarballs, then we can tell people to try that instead of Git, but they have to keep getting the whole tarball as we make changes, not just git pull. - Be unable to install a simple Python package to generate the HTML It is fine to require developers to have the full tool suite, but only a small percent of git users are actually Geany developers. Geany itself should not need anything other than what is in build-essential, plugins are another story. Just a thought, since I cringe just a little every time I see a commit with this file in it :) /rant Filter your commit messages :) Cheers Lex Cheers, Matthew Brush ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel ___ Geany-devel mailing list Geany-devel@uvena.de https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel
Re: [Geany-devel] Glade 3 version?
On 12/19/2011 05:01 PM, Lex Trotman wrote: On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 9:19 AM, Matthew Brushmbr...@codebrainz.ca wrote: On 12/19/2011 09:37 AM, Nick Treleaven wrote: On 19/12/2011 14:40, Matthew Brush wrote: On 12/19/2011 05:54 AM, Nick Treleaven wrote: Hi, I tried opening data/geany.glade with the latest Glade, 3.8.1 on Windows. Pressing Save writes a lot of changes to the file, 260 Kb. It seems to be mostly reordering property tag lines for use_action_appearance. Also, when I added 2 menu items it created duplicate image ids for image1, image2. Not sure what this means. It stopped Geany from starting with an error message about image1 being defined twice. I'm not sure why it made duplicate IDs, but I guess we should try and start naming things properly now, at least new stuff we add. This is what I've been doing since the conversion, but there's still lots of default/crazy widget names in there :) [...] IMO, if you can't get the changes down to less, it doesn't really matter if there's a bunch of noise in the commit, it's not like anyone really needs to be able to read it, as long as the commit message describes I disagree no one needs to read it. glade diffs should be reviewed by the author the same as all other code checkins IMO. Meh, I tend to think of it as a binary blob. We can't hand-edit it and Glade is free to do whatever it wants outside of our control. What's more, the point of using Glade is to avoid having to hand code this 10,000 line XML beast. That being said (see below) if we can do something to make the commits nicer, I agree we should. I agree with both of you. We shouldn't have to review generated XML, but the GUI doesn't make it easy to tell what was changed in a particular commit. Whilst it is a nice idea to reduce the noise, Glade is free to do whatever it wants. I don't agree with fixing versions of tools, we will get into the same situation we were in with Glade 2, using unsupported tools and forcing all develpers to use special installs instead of the standard ones. It doesn't even need to be a hard rule about version, but we could recommend a specific version. I think Colomban had problems with 3.6 and obviously 3.10 won't work since it only supports GTK 2.24+, so that really only leaves us the 3.8.x versions, and since 3.8.1 is bug fix release of 3.8.0, I guess it makes sense to recommend that. In a perfect world though we could just open it in whatever Glade 3 version is installed on the system and it would Just Work, but I think we've all used Glade enough to know that will probably never happen. I'm hoping that we can standardise on 3.8.1 so we can review diffs and also avoid adding noise/bloat to the git repo each time someone uses a different version of Glade than the last commit. I'm all for this, I can easily remove 3.8.0 and switch to 3.8.1. It does seem like 3.8.1 is the last stable release before our version of GTK+ is not supported anymore (3.10), so it makes sense and is convenient for use on Windows with a binary available. I guess we should/could note this in the HACKING file or something? rant Out of curiosity though, if we want to avoid noise/bloat in the Git repository, why don't we untrack generated files like geany.html which are already available online, in the source tarballs, and in all releases (including win32 IIRC)? The usefulness of this is pretty slim, one has to: - Be using development version of Geany from Git, and Which we continualy tell people to try if they have problems Not sure it's the best idea to recommend the average user installs experimental code as their main Geany version though. - Be unable to read a text file with the very same content, and The text file doesn't open from f1 - Have no internet access (for online manual), and Many people pay for downloads, forcing them to use the online version is poor form I'd agree if they didn't already need an internet connection to get the source in the first place. After the first view of the online manual, the browser should cache it (I think). - Have no release install or tarball available, and So long as geany.html is in the daily tarballs, then we can tell people to try that instead of Git, but they have to keep getting the whole tarball as we make changes, not just git pull. (see below) - Be unable to install a simple Python package to generate the HTML It is fine to require developers to have the full tool suite, but only a small percent of git users are actually Geany developers. Geany itself should not need anything other than what is in build-essential, plugins are another story. If you're building from Git, you're a developer in my books (in the sense that you've figured out how to track down build-essential, libgtk2-dev, use autotools, install to an alt. prefix, etc). I think we could assume they're competent enough to run `sudo python setup.py install` (or use their package
