Hello,
Two minor compatibility patches to keep-up with bleeding-edge stuff.
Cheers
Am 16.04.2012 13:33, schrieb Quentin Glidic:
Hello,
Two minor compatibility patches to keep-up with bleeding-edge stuff.
Dear Maintainer of Debugger and Multiterm.... Can you have a look at this patches and send pull request to geany-plugins master?
Cheers, Frank
On 12-04-19 01:09 AM, Frank Lanitz wrote:
Am 16.04.2012 13:33, schrieb Quentin Glidic:
Hello,
Two minor compatibility patches to keep-up with bleeding-edge stuff.
Dear Maintainer of Debugger and Multiterm.... Can you have a look at this patches and send pull request to geany-plugins master?
An explanation would be useful.
For MultiTerm, presumably it's to avoid a clash with GLib.Menu/MenuItem? Is GIO stuff part of the implicit namespace for GLib?
If the answer to those is yes, it looks fine to apply as is. Even if the answer is no, the patch shouldn't harm anything besides cluttering up the code a little bit.
Cheers, Matthew Brush
On 19/04/2012 16:43, Matthew Brush wrote:
An explanation would be useful.
For MultiTerm, presumably it's to avoid a clash with GLib.Menu/MenuItem? Is GIO stuff part of the implicit namespace for GLib?
Yes, and yes.
If the answer to those is yes, it looks fine to apply as is. Even if the answer is no, the patch shouldn't harm anything besides cluttering up the code a little bit.
Attached a new patch with a better commit message.
Please note that the debugger patch is not necessary any more. cppcheck probably understands this syntax now.
On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 17:38:00 +0200 Quentin Glidic sardemff7+geany@sardemff7.net wrote:
On 19/04/2012 16:43, Matthew Brush wrote:
An explanation would be useful.
For MultiTerm, presumably it's to avoid a clash with GLib.Menu/MenuItem? Is GIO stuff part of the implicit namespace for GLib?
Yes, and yes.
If the answer to those is yes, it looks fine to apply as is. Even if the answer is no, the patch shouldn't harm anything besides cluttering up the code a little bit.
Attached a new patch with a better commit message.
With a view onto http://lists.uvena.de/pipermail/geany-devel/2012-May/006824.html Is this fine to append?
Cheers, Frank
On 12-05-09 01:02 PM, Frank Lanitz wrote:
On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 17:38:00 +0200 Quentin Glidicsardemff7+geany@sardemff7.net wrote:
On 19/04/2012 16:43, Matthew Brush wrote:
An explanation would be useful.
For MultiTerm, presumably it's to avoid a clash with GLib.Menu/MenuItem? Is GIO stuff part of the implicit namespace for GLib?
Yes, and yes.
If the answer to those is yes, it looks fine to apply as is. Even if the answer is no, the patch shouldn't harm anything besides cluttering up the code a little bit.
Attached a new patch with a better commit message.
With a view onto http://lists.uvena.de/pipermail/geany-devel/2012-May/006824.html Is this fine to append?
Yeah it's fine.
Thanks, Matthew Brush
Am 10.05.2012 02:20, schrieb Matthew Brush:
On 12-05-09 01:02 PM, Frank Lanitz wrote:
On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 17:38:00 +0200 Quentin Glidicsardemff7+geany@sardemff7.net wrote:
On 19/04/2012 16:43, Matthew Brush wrote:
An explanation would be useful.
For MultiTerm, presumably it's to avoid a clash with GLib.Menu/MenuItem? Is GIO stuff part of the implicit namespace for GLib?
Yes, and yes.
If the answer to those is yes, it looks fine to apply as is. Even if the answer is no, the patch shouldn't harm anything besides cluttering up the code a little bit.
Attached a new patch with a better commit message.
With a view onto http://lists.uvena.de/pipermail/geany-devel/2012-May/006824.html Is this fine to append?
Yeah it's fine.
OK. will add it then later this week - I hope I find some time by today CEST but cannot give any guarantee.
Cheers, Frank
On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 17:38:00 +0200 Quentin Glidic sardemff7+geany@sardemff7.net wrote:
On 19/04/2012 16:43, Matthew Brush wrote:
An explanation would be useful.
For MultiTerm, presumably it's to avoid a clash with GLib.Menu/MenuItem? Is GIO stuff part of the implicit namespace for GLib?
Yes, and yes.
If the answer to those is yes, it looks fine to apply as is. Even if the answer is no, the patch shouldn't harm anything besides cluttering up the code a little bit.
Attached a new patch with a better commit message.
I'm afraid its not applying. Can you rebuild it for current head?
Cheers, Frank
On 12-05-18 01:47 PM, Quentin Glidic wrote:
On 18/05/2012 22:37, Frank Lanitz wrote:
I'm afraid its not applying. Can you rebuild it for current head?
Cheers, Frank
Here it is.
Thanks both.
Cheers, Matthew Brush