> ... instead of properly linking to it and making a build-time decision; and we're likely the odd kid here.
Yeah, @codebrainz has persuaded me that we could just drop that runtime stuff now, but we still need various `#ifs` to handle all the various versions IIUC.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/geany/geany/issues/336#issuecomment-240998634
@elextr to be fair, they broke API and that's all. It's perfectly understandable, and when it doesn't happen every 5th of the month, it's generally warranted by good reasons -- heh, we even do that ourselves from time to time :) E.g., switching a GTK3 API to use GdkRGBA *is* sensible per se, they just happened to keep better-than-sane compatibility in the 2.90 era. That's unfortunate for us to some extent (as we could have assumed new API if GTK3), but we can hardly blame them for that.
The only point where I actually don't like 0.38 is that it doesn't have proper runtime version checks -- which were introduced later on --, yet our use somewhat requires it. But well, that's only relevant to us because for some reason we `dlopen()` VTE instead of properly linking to it and making a build-time decision; and we're likely the odd kid here.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/geany/geany/issues/336#issuecomment-240996125
@elextr
> ... as we have to still support GTK2 ...
No, you don't _have to_. Your project has decided to support it rather than sticking to a particular GTK and spending the freed up resources on something else. It was your project's decision, and...
> And that is keeping us from doing useful things with Geany.
... apparently you yourself are in doubt whether it was a good one.
So just because VTE gave the other possible answer to the same question, why does it make our project shit???
You still owe me that apology for your unacceptable style (no, not the different opinion, you're free to have that; it's the style), and until I receive that, I'm off from this discussion.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/geany/geany/issues/336#issuecomment-240960113
@egmontkob basically everything you say applies to Geany as well, we are all volunteers who do Geany in our own time.
And as we have to still support GTK2 VTE as well, we have to have #idefs or runtime tests to handle changes of API through time, the very thing you are refusing to do. And that is keeping us from doing useful things with Geany.
As for removing VTE, well, I have been saying that for ages, since way before GTK3, so thats nothing new.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/geany/geany/issues/336#issuecomment-240956829
@elextr OMG you need to update your code *once*!!! Which, as I've said, would take maybe a few hours, and the same goes for about a dozen projects out there in the wild using VTE. Compare this to the amount of time and effort it would have taken us to develop and test each and every change (hundreds of them) during the years for two different GTK+ versions in parallel. No one can seriously think that that would have been the better approach.
I'm here absolutely voluntarily to help you out to get Geany ported to the newer version, and also give you rationale behind our decisions, and up to now I was happy to do it.
I've contributed *a lot* voluntarily to VTE (and *many* VTE-based apps) and I truly enjoyed it! It doesn't take a genius to realize what I've already mentioned: Had we had to maintain VTE for two different versions in parallel, we would have had less time to develop the GTK+-3 version and hence currently it wouldn't be anywhere near as good as it is now. But there's one more factor to this: I did it happily and passionately as a hobby project. Had I had to maintain an ancient version too in parallel to the current one, I wouldn't have been that happy and that passionate, and hence would have spent an overall significantly smaller time on the project.
I've faced disagreements, conflicts, disappointments throughout these times, but never during my volunteered contributions for these years have I ever felt offended – but I do now, by you calling our work "shit".
You know what... pretty much every other VTE-based project has already managed to update their code by now, Geany is one of the very few left behind... don't you think that maybe YOU should get YOUR shit together?!
And you owe us (VTE developers) an apology!
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/geany/geany/issues/336#issuecomment-240944020
Yeah, that's what I meant. IIRC the patch that introduced the feature was fairly small.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/geany/geany/issues/336#issuecomment-240896205
it's probably possible to hide the pref UI when the VTE API is missing, yeah.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/geany/geany/issues/336#issuecomment-240896153