On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Lex Trotman
<elextr@gmail.com> wrote:
>From your previous post...
> And i believe that such a use-case lies in the realm of gnome-text-editor instead of an IDE. IDEs are (traditionally) designed to manage specific source-based projects, not OS-wide collections of arbitrary trees.
Thats a very narrow view of what an IDE is/can be used for. The
characteristics of an IDE encompass many more features than how they
manage trees, and those features are not just the prerogative of
"professional" programmers, it isn't reasonable to use Geany as open
source software and say that its features shouldn't be available to
other open source projects, however they are organised, and even if
If it's not geared towards development then it shouldn't be called an IDE (Integrated Development Environment), but a Project Management tool (which is going a bit far, i think, seeing that a project is simply a list of open files) or "Glorified Editor".
Geany is filled to the brim with software-development-specific features - it is unequivocally an IDE, and IDEs are for managing source projects. Source projects are, almost without exception, rooted under a single directory (perhaps consisting of several modules checked out from different sources, but that's besides the point). i say "almost without exception" because if i say "without exception" someone will prove me wrong. But in my not inconsiderable experience the term "always" is more accurate.
they don't have .geany files in their repositories. And copying a
.geany into the working tree is going to invite the attention of the
vcs. And no you can't add *.geany to the .(your vcs here)ignore file,
its under control too.
One is never forced to add a file to vcs just because svn reports a '?' next to it in 'svn status'. Yes, it's slightly annoying to have '?' show up in the status, but it's nothing new (object files show up there, too).
> However, even if the session handling is changed to be
> per-project-file-instance (per USER would still have hosed me here), i feel
> very strongly that having absolute paths in the project file is
> fundamentally wrong.
Well, given that I am saying that really we shouldn't have *any*
session paths in the project file I guess we sort of agree here. Just
not about how to fix it.
Fair enough. i admit that i am a bit of a hard-liner/hard-ass on this point, but that's because i think Geany is trying to fill the "please everyone" role, and at the same time breaking this important feature for the core (99%+) market - developers who work under "rooted" software trees.