<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 18.10.2012 02:55, schrieb Lex
Trotman:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAKhWKDOiBQH03LYnJTLDqG21UExxSk=7x3JTn9T62DkCOE_vrw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div><span
style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><br>
</span></div>
<div><font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif">To kick the
ball off, here is my thoughts on the topic.</font></div>
<div><font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif">First thought
is that there is plenty of upside to such cooperation in terms
of attracting more contributors to the developer version of
Geany.</font></div>
<div><font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif">The flip side
of that is of course that more bugs would be reported and
expected to be fixed. (Bug reports are good, its the
*expectation* that they will be quickly fixed that is the
problem.) I would hope that Mint would be able to contribute
to that effort.</font></div>
<div><font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif">I am not sure
how much effort it would take to make the Geany UI able to
hide the "developer" features, it will be some complication
for sure, but probably not a big one.</font></div>
<div><font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif">If Mint use a
"friendly fork" approach it does reduce the impact this has on
the Geany project, but it will also reduce the possible
bugfixes that come back to Geany (since the fork is different
patches may not apply).</font></div>
<div><font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif">If we provide
the "plain editor" version as an option on Geany it adds to
the workload, though I would hope that Mint would contribute
to that extra effort.</font></div>
<div><font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif">I am
personally undecided at the moment, noting that Mint will do
what is appropriate for their distro, and it is up to us to
try to engage with them ina way that provides the maximum
benefit for both groups.</font><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<br>
First of all, I find the idea of Geany becoming the default text
editor in some distro. The idea that a distro uses an IDE as a text
editor by default is an acknowledgement for our goal to keep Geany
lightweight.<br>
<br>
I understand they want a simplified user interface. However, as
Geany would be exposed to many newcomers, it should be clearly
visible that this is not the real Geany (which is vastly more
powerful). So IMO the name should express the difference (perhaps
"Geany Lite"?). Otherwise the newcomers will think of Geany as a
simple text editor, and not a powerful IDE and ultimately use
another program for IDE tasks.<br>
<br>
However, in the end it would be best and most important to avoid a
fork, since that doesn't help us a bit.<br>
<br>
PS: I'm also not sure that a new wave of contribution will come from
the Linux Mint side, seeing that they consider to fork gedit rather
than to improve it collectively with upstream (but perhaps they just
became hesitant to work with Gnome people?). He even suggested
forking Geany in his very first approach to us.<br>
<br>
Best regards.<br>
</body>
</html>