On 13-10-02 05:19 PM, Lex Trotman wrote:

All Developers,

Its time we deprecated windows support!!

The windows code in Geany is:

• unmaintained and bit-rotting

• buggy

• holding us at an unreasonably old GTK version

• hard to maintain due to being hacks on top of hacks

• few of the developers have access to a representative development setup

(no WinXP on a VM is hardly representative)

Since there has never been a case of removing support for a platform before (that I know of) we don't have a process for doing it.

Therefore I propose that the windows version be deprecated, announcing it on the website, user ML and #geany startup message and anywhere else it might get through.

If this does not result in contributors who support the windows version coming forward and actually making a difference in the code and the user support then Windows should be dropped in a couple of versions.

I don't have any windows systems, don't use it and can't develop for it, but I have always noted when I was aware that some issue would impact the windows version, and have tried to help people who have had difficulties with Geany on windows where I could.

But I have run out of patience.

Heh, you're the only one with commit access that doesn't have at least a VM to test Windows stuff on :)

Anyway, I'm against removing Windows support, since a large portion of Geany's users (anecdotally, from IRC and bug tracker) are running Windows, but I am totally for:

- Removing buggy, non-trivial, non-maintained, win32-specific code (ie all of win32.[ch]). - Removing all #ifdef G_OS_WIN32 guards/blocks unless strictly required (since we're using G* we should need few if any such guards to be cross-platform). - Removing 2 of 3 build systems and using *one* that can compile Geany on all platforms (ex. fix Autotools to work in MSYS, or only using Waf, or maybe CMake or something else). - Having nightly/continuous build for Windows using above build system and environment, so non-Windows-using developers can know if they broke Windows build (IIUC current Win32 nightly builds using cross-compilation from Linux, completely separate from Win32 release build). Not sure this is possible unless we can run a VM on the server though. - Not officially caring about WinXP since it's hasn't "mainstream" support by Microsoft since 2009 (and is officially EOL next year). - Enabling GTK+3 support in Windows release and using latest supported GTK+ bundles provided by upstream, so were not fighting 5+ year old bugs that likely have been fixed since. - Not "working around" bugs in G* win32 stuff with #ifdef/win32.c hacks, but rather just filing a bug report upstream and pointing anyone hitting the bug to the upstream ticket. - Having a script and/or documentation on the Windows release/installer creation process so it can be updated and understood by all developers.

I think with most of the above it would alleviate the maintenance burden related to Win32 support.

Cheers, Matthew Brush

I kinda feel bad for the Windows users (in more than one way ;-), but I sure would like to see those inline file modified dialogs instead of pop-ups.

Also, removing the if defs like Tory suggests and simplifying code is always nice.

Is there any way to give some support to the Windows guys without maybe official full-featured support?  Do we know how many people on Windows use Geany, users specifically and not geany devs?

Anyway, that's my 2 cents, if they are worth anything.

Steve

________________________________ From: Lex Trotman elextr@gmail.com To: Geany development list devel@lists.geany.org Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2013 8:02 PM Subject: Re: [Geany-Devel] On Deprecation of Platforms

On 3 October 2013 11:24, Matthew Brush mbrush@codebrainz.ca wrote:

On 13-10-02 05:19 PM, Lex Trotman wrote:

All Developers,

...

Its time we deprecated windows support!!

The windows code in Geany is:

• unmaintained and bit-rotting

• buggy

• holding us at an unreasonably old GTK version

• hard to maintain due to being hacks on top of hacks

• few of the developers have access to a representative development setup

(no WinXP on a VM is hardly representative)

Since there has never been a case of removing support for a platform before (that I know of) we don't have a process for doing it.

Therefore I propose that the windows version be deprecated, announcing it on the website, user ML and #geany startup message and anywhere else it might get through.

If this does not result in contributors who support the windows version coming forward and actually making a difference in the code and the user support then Windows should be dropped in a couple of versions.

I don't have any windows systems, don't use it and can't develop for it, but I have always noted when I was aware that some issue would impact the windows version, and have tried to help people who have had difficulties with Geany on windows where I could.

But I have run out of patience.

Heh, you're the only one with commit access that doesn't have at least a VM to test Windows stuff on :)

But nobody actually does anything to fix the problems, so how would we know :)

Anyway, I'm against removing Windows support, since a large portion of Geany's users (anecdotally, from IRC and bug tracker) are running Windows, but I am totally for:

• Removing buggy, non-trivial, non-maintained, win32-specific code (ie all of win32.[ch]).
• Removing all #ifdef G_OS_WIN32 guards/blocks unless strictly required (since we're using G* we should need few if any such guards to be cross-platform).
• Removing 2 of 3 build systems and using *one* that can compile Geany on all platforms (ex. fix Autotools to work in MSYS, or only using Waf, or maybe CMake or something else).
• Having nightly/continuous build for Windows using above build system and environment, so non-Windows-using developers can know if they broke Windows build (IIUC current Win32 nightly builds using cross-compilation from Linux, completely separate from Win32 release build). Not sure this is possible unless we can run a VM on the server though.
• Not officially caring about WinXP since it's hasn't "mainstream" support by Microsoft since 2009 (and is officially EOL next year).
• Enabling GTK+3 support in Windows release and using latest supported GTK+ bundles provided by upstream, so were not fighting 5+ year old bugs that likely have been fixed since.
• Not "working around" bugs in G* win32 stuff with #ifdef/win32.c hacks, but rather just filing a bug report upstream and pointing anyone hitting the bug to the upstream ticket.
• Having a script and/or documentation on the Windows release/installer creation process so it can be updated and understood by all developers.

I think with most of the above it would alleviate the maintenance burden related to Win32 support.

That seems a likely nice way forward for windows support, if it is continued. But this requires work, and my point is that, at the moment, ***nobody*** is going to do it.

Since nobody has actually come forward and demonstrated that they have the capability and the ***will*** to maintain windows support, we should warn everyone that this is the case.  If someone(s) actually does the things you have listed above, then great, thats the best outcome.

But lets face reality, if no maintainers who ***will*** fix windows can be found, kill support for that platform.  An unmaintained platform should not dictate the future of the project.

Cheers Lex

Cheers, Matthew Brush

---

Devel mailing list Devel@lists.geany.org https://lists.geany.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel

_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.geany.org https://lists.geany.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel

Le 03/10/2013 02:19, Lex Trotman a écrit :

All Developers,

Its time we deprecated windows support!!

Although I don't use Windows, I don't really see why.

The windows code in Geany is:

• unmaintained and bit-rotting

Nick uses it AFAIK, and he had done things on it, so it's not that true.

• buggy

Well, I can't say there isn't a problem with the spawning code here -- but that's the "only" thing I know that is truly problematic.

• holding us at an unreasonably old GTK version

Sorry? I don't think Windows support has anything to do with the GTK version we support. If anything, it's rather the contrary, providing a newer version for Windows installers is far easier than forcing users of old GNU/Linux distros to build a new version.

• hard to maintain due to being hacks on top of hacks

Again, spawning code (only?)

• few of the developers have access to a representative development

setup (no WinXP on a VM is hardly representative)

I indeed don't, but AFAIK Nick and Matthew does

[...]

If this does not result in contributors who support the windows version coming forward and actually making a difference in the code and the user support then Windows should be dropped in a couple of versions.

It would indeed be nice to have more developers that really user the Windows version and have time and will to improve and fix it.

I don't have any windows systems, don't use it and can't develop for it, but I have always noted when I was aware that some issue would impact the windows version, and have tried to help people who have had difficulties with Geany on windows where I could.

That was nice, thanks :)

Anyway, although I agree the Windows version isn't as good as it should right now, I don't really see the problem it causes to the rest of Geany. And if we indeed clean some things up a little like Matthew suggests, it could even be just fine (Windows dialogs, come on).

Cheers, Colomban

I kinda like what Lex said:

"I'm not saying delete anything inside #ifdef OS_WIN32 tomorrow. But also in fairness some warning that platform specific code is not being maintained adequately needs to be given to Windows users, and their help sought, and this is one way I can think of that makes it clear."

Basically we don't abandon what works in windows, but we encourage people to step up and help if they care about it, otherwise support will slowly break. Does that sound good?

Anyway, I don't even know if I have a line of code that made it into master so far, so once again take my input with a grain of salt. I'd rather not drop support for anyone, but it's also seemingly more difficult with windows, so I think this gradual approach is probably a good compromise.

Thanks,

Steve

On 10/03/2013 08:37 AM, Lex Trotman wrote:

On 3 October 2013 23:19, Colomban Wendling <lists.ban@herbesfolles.org mailto:lists.ban@herbesfolles.org> wrote:

Le 03/10/2013 02:19, Lex Trotman a écrit :
> All Developers,
>
> Its time we deprecated windows support!!

Although I don't use Windows, I don't really see why.

>
> The windows code in Geany is:
>
> - unmaintained and bit-rotting

Nick uses it AFAIK, and he had done things on it, so it's not that
true.

Nick seems to be the only one that attempts to maintain it, and as he noted in another thread, he doesn't have much time these days and he doesn't want to be maintainer again. He's done sterling work over many years, lets say thanks, and let the guy have a break :)

> - buggy

Well, I can't say there isn't a problem with the spawning code here --
but that's the "only" thing I know that is truly problematic.

About 10% of the open bugs are labelled windows.

> - holding us at an unreasonably old GTK version

Sorry?  I don't think Windows support has anything to do with the GTK
version we support.  If anything, it's rather the contrary,
providing a
newer version for Windows installers is far easier than forcing
users of
old GNU/Linux distros to build a new version.

Well, as I understand it, moving the windows packages to GTK 2.24 is the only thing holding us at 2.16. As there was a deathly hush on the ML thread when volunteers were requested to try it, I guess nobody is willing to support it, even just for that.

> - hard to maintain due to being hacks on top of hacks

Again, spawning code (only?)

Again 10% of open bugs.

> - few of the developers have access to a representative development
> setup (no WinXP on a VM is hardly representative)

I indeed don't, but AFAIK Nick and Matthew does

And I should add, its not reasonable if you are the only one either, the fixes needed to windows will deprive the rest of Geany of any of your effort. Its not as if there are no other things to do :)

> [...]
>
> If this does not result in contributors who support the windows
version
> coming forward and actually making a difference in the code and
the user
> support then Windows should be dropped in a couple of versions.

It would indeed be nice to have more developers that really user the
Windows version and have time and will to improve and fix it.

And therein lies the problem, the Linux version is not exactly brimming with developers and, as far as I can tell, nobody wants to support the windows specific code.

> I don't have any windows systems, don't use it and can't develop
for it,
> but I have always noted when I was aware that some issue would
impact
> the windows version, and have tried to help people who have had
> difficulties with Geany on windows where I could.

That was nice, thanks :)

Well, not having time for non-work coding ATM, answering (and asking :) questions is my limit.

Anyway, although I agree the Windows version isn't as good as it
should
right now, I don't really see the problem it causes to the rest of
Geany.  And if we indeed clean some things up a little like Matthew
suggests, it could even be just fine (Windows dialogs, come on).

Again, the issue is, without anybody to do it, all that happens is that the rest of Geany gets less love.

Lots of people over the years have put forward suggestions, but none of them have even dropped a PR or patch, let alone assisted with maintenance. Its not nice to cut off a platform, but if everybody expects others to do the work, then we may have no choice or the whole project will collapse.

I'm not saying delete anything inside #ifdef OS_WIN32 tomorrow. But also in fairness some warning that platform specific code is not being maintained adequately needs to be given to Windows users, and their help sought, and this is one way I can think of that makes it clear. Other suggestions are welcome :)

Cheers Lex

Cheers,
Colomban
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.geany.org <mailto:Devel@lists.geany.org>
https://lists.geany.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel

---

Devel mailing list Devel@lists.geany.org https://lists.geany.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel

On 03/10/2013 15:37, Lex Trotman wrote:

...

...

...

...

• holding us at an unreasonably old GTK version

Sorry? I don't think Windows support has anything to do with the GTK version we support. If anything, it's rather the contrary, providing a newer version for Windows installers is far easier than forcing users of old GNU/Linux distros to build a new version.

Well, as I understand it, moving the windows packages to GTK 2.24 is the only thing holding us at 2.16. As there was a deathly hush on the ML thread when volunteers were requested to try it, I guess nobody is willing to support it, even just for that.

I'm not sure that was the main reason, I argued that LTS distros was a reason for keeping older dependencies. I expect there are newer runtimes, I heard gtk 3 on Windows works reasonably well since last year or so.

In any case, if we want to up the dependencies, don't deliberately drop Windows support.

...

...

...

...

• hard to maintain due to being hacks on top of hacks

Again, spawning code (only?)

Again 10% of open bugs.

Just because there are unresolved bugs doesn't mean we should drop a platform.

User: 'Your software doesn't work right' Dev: 'Forget it, we're going to stop releases for your platform'

...

...

...

...

• few of the developers have access to a representative development

setup (no WinXP on a VM is hardly representative)

I indeed don't, but AFAIK Nick and Matthew does

And I should add, its not reasonable if you are the only one either, the fixes needed to windows will deprive the rest of Geany of any of your effort. Its not as if there are no other things to do:)

A slightly broken Windows version is infinitely better than none at all. I use it and don't experience any significant issues that can't be worked around.

...

...

Anyway, although I agree the Windows version isn't as good as it should right now, I don't really see the problem it causes to the rest of Geany. And if we indeed clean some things up a little like Matthew suggests, it could even be just fine (Windows dialogs, come on).

I don't mind if Matt wants to remove the Windows dialogs. Enrico put them in, I think they're not really necessary.

Again, the issue is, without anybody to do it, all that happens is that the rest of Geany gets less love.

Lots of people over the years have put forward suggestions, but none of them have even dropped a PR or patch, let alone assisted with maintenance. Its not nice to cut off a platform, but if everybody expects others to do the work, then we may have no choice or the whole project will collapse.

^^^ *Massive* exaggeration. Most open source projects have unresolved bugs. Unfunded open source projects work mostly because developers fix problems that they themselves experience. I don't see any significant problems with the Windows version that affect me.

I'm not saying delete anything inside #ifdef OS_WIN32 tomorrow. But also in fairness some warning that platform specific code is not being maintained adequately needs to be given to Windows users, and their help sought, and this is one way I can think of that makes it clear. Other suggestions are welcome:)

You are massively overreacting. If we really cared so much about user experience we would make more bugfix releases, but we don't have the resources for that.

All,

If people are worried about the "D" word (deprecated) then initially phrase it as "Looking for Windows maintainers". An example message:

"Looking for Windows maintainers:

Currently Geany has nobody to concentrate on the Windows version. We are all Linux hackers, we need someone to focus on making the Geany experience on windows comparable with the Linux one. Geany is a Glib/GTK based program and is mostly portable with small parts of the code specific to the windows version. These need some love.

Must be able to code in C on windows with the GNU toolchain and preferably be familiar with the GTK toolkit.

Also provide user support on the ML, and IRC on an as available basis.

Apply to devel list."

Cheers Lex

On 04/10/2013 04:09, Lex Trotman wrote:

On 4 October 2013 02:35, Nick Treleaven nick.treleaven@btinternet.comwrote:

...

On 03/10/2013 15:37, Lex Trotman wrote:

...

...

...

• holding us at an unreasonably old GTK version

Sorry? I don't think Windows support has anything to do with the GTK version we support. If anything, it's rather the contrary, providing a newer version for Windows installers is far easier than forcing users of old GNU/Linux distros to build a new version.

Well, as I understand it, moving the windows packages to GTK 2.24 is the only thing holding us at 2.16. As there was a deathly hush on the ML thread when volunteers were requested to try it, I guess nobody is willing to support it, even just for that.

I'm not sure that was the main reason, I argued that LTS distros was a reason for keeping older dependencies. I expect there are newer runtimes, I heard gtk 3 on Windows works reasonably well since last year or so.

IIRC the LTS distros were 2.18 at least. GTK3 Geany for Linux is currently quite stable, I use it every day. GTK3 on windows could be ok, but again we come to the point that nobody is going to do the work of testing it and then changing the release and nightly builder.

Since the only way Windows is "stopping" any upgrades of the oldest version is the builders using 2.16, maybe stopping windows support is just no longer making those packages, leaving the code inside #ifdef OS_WIN32 there for you to build it with your preferred GTK.

I don't understand sorry, why is 2.16 needed for Windows? I have newer than that.

...

...

...

• few of the developers have access to a representative development

...

...

> setup (no WinXP on a VM is hardly representative)

I indeed don't, but AFAIK Nick and Matthew does

And I should add, its not reasonable if you are the only one either, the fixes needed to windows will deprive the rest of Geany of any of your effort. Its not as if there are no other things to do:)

A slightly broken Windows version is infinitely better than none at all. I use it and don't experience any significant issues that can't be worked around.

But thats not a universal experience, and again there is nobody who is looking at why and how to fix it. At least the Linux version gets a slow trickle of changes.

You are exaggerating.

...

...

Anyway, although I agree the Windows version isn't as good as it should

...

...

right now, I don't really see the problem it causes to the rest of Geany. And if we indeed clean some things up a little like Matthew suggests, it could even be just fine (Windows dialogs, come on).

I don't mind if Matt wants to remove the Windows dialogs. Enrico put them in, I think they're not really necessary.

Again "somebody else do it", Matt having already said he won't. :)

I must have misread him then.

How about this, I make the Windows dialog pref a various pref and merge the file overwrite PR. Various prefs are already warned about.

...

Again, the issue is, without anybody to do it, all that happens is that

...

the rest of Geany gets less love.

Lots of people over the years have put forward suggestions, but none of them have even dropped a PR or patch, let alone assisted with maintenance. Its not nice to cut off a platform, but if everybody expects others to do the work, then we may have no choice or the whole project will collapse.

^^^ *Massive* exaggeration. Most open source projects have unresolved bugs. Unfunded open source projects work mostly because developers fix problems that they themselves experience. I don't see any significant problems with the Windows version that affect me.

And you do work on the problems that affect you, and thank you for that, but "support" is also answering bug reports and questions on IRC, otherwise you get the current situation of Matt and I blundering about in the dark (well Matt might have a small torch, but I'm in the dark). I'm not criticising you or suggesting you take over the role again, I'm looking for people to help you.

We shouldn't deprecate it, that won't help anyone.

...

I'm not saying delete anything inside #ifdef OS_WIN32 tomorrow. But also

...

in fairness some warning that platform specific code is not being maintained adequately needs to be given to Windows users, and their help sought, and this is one way I can think of that makes it clear. Other suggestions are welcome:)

You are massively overreacting. If we really cared so much about user experience we would make more bugfix releases, but we don't have the resources for that.

Indeed, and that is the problem I'm trying to address. If we don't make it clear to people that they need to step up and help, we will get nowhere.

You can call for contributors. Don't annoy Windows users.