I'd like to discuss the possibility of changing to a non modal prompt for file change notification. I would prefer a system like gedits, I couldn't find a screenshot of this but for those without access to gedit it is comparable to the handling of popups and passwords in newer versions of firefox.
Let me be the first to say how much I love this idea...I hate anything modal /ˈmɪstər/ /ˈdʒɛnəsɪs/@/dʒi/ /meɪl/ /dɒt/ /kɒm/ Benjamin West
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Gordon Wrigley gordon.wrigley@gmail.comwrote:
I'd like to discuss the possibility of changing to a non modal prompt for file change notification. I would prefer a system like gedits, I couldn't find a screenshot of this but for those without access to gedit it is comparable to the handling of popups and passwords in newer versions of firefox. _______________________________________________ Geany mailing list Geany@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 12:03:06 +1100, Gordon Wrigley gordon.wrigley@gmail.com wrote:
I'd like to discuss the possibility of changing to a non modal prompt for file change notification. I would prefer a system like gedits, I couldn't find a screenshot of this but for those without access to gedit it is comparable to the handling of popups and passwords in newer versions of firefox.
So far, the count is 2 vs 1 votes :).
I totally don't like those, whatever it is called, bars. At least not for important things and especially not when user input is needed (reload? yes/no).
I saw these things only once or twice in Gedit but I know them from Firefox and it's really annoying. I remember the first few times I just didn't realise them at all and wondered why Firefox isn't asking anymore whether I want to save the entered password.
Such bars may be ok for informational messages or notices but definitely not for warnings or questions with user feedback.
In case of the 'Do you want to reload' dialog when a file has changed, this should be modal as it doesn't make much sense when you already have typed 5 other lines in the file and then you notice 'oh, there is a box asking me to reload the file'. I personally would consider using another software in such a case. The main intention of this dialog is not to annoy users (although during the last days it actually did, sorry :D) but the dialog should warn users and prevent possible data loss by overwriting external changes.
Regards, Enrico
technically, if vcdiff is already installed, couldn't it be leveraged to manage any changes made since the file in the filesystem changed? just a thought. /ˈmɪstər/ /ˈdʒɛnəsɪs/@/dʒi/ /meɪl/ /dɒt/ /kɒm/ Benjamin West
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Enrico Tröger enrico.troeger@uvena.dewrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 12:03:06 +1100, Gordon Wrigley gordon.wrigley@gmail.com wrote:
I'd like to discuss the possibility of changing to a non modal prompt for file change notification. I would prefer a system like gedits, I couldn't find a screenshot of this but for those without access to gedit it is comparable to the handling of popups and passwords in newer versions of firefox.
So far, the count is 2 vs 1 votes :).
I totally don't like those, whatever it is called, bars. At least not for important things and especially not when user input is needed (reload? yes/no).
I saw these things only once or twice in Gedit but I know them from Firefox and it's really annoying. I remember the first few times I just didn't realise them at all and wondered why Firefox isn't asking anymore whether I want to save the entered password.
Such bars may be ok for informational messages or notices but definitely not for warnings or questions with user feedback.
In case of the 'Do you want to reload' dialog when a file has changed, this should be modal as it doesn't make much sense when you already have typed 5 other lines in the file and then you notice 'oh, there is a box asking me to reload the file'. I personally would consider using another software in such a case. The main intention of this dialog is not to annoy users (although during the last days it actually did, sorry :D) but the dialog should warn users and prevent possible data loss by overwriting external changes.
Regards, Enrico
-- Get my GPG key from http://www.uvena.de/pub.asc
Geany mailing list Geany@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:16:37 -0700, Ben West mrgenixus@gmail.com wrote:
technically, if vcdiff is already installed, couldn't it be leveraged to manage any changes made since the file in the filesystem changed? just a thought.
First of all, this is very unrelated to the original topic but anyway:
IMO this is no option because it would list all changes in the file with the stored version in the SCM. This would include your changes and the changes made by the external program. Then the user has again to manually find what he has changed and what was changed by the other program. And probably there are more other use cases where this could lead to more work and risk than it would help.
Regards, Enrico
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:16:37 -0700 Ben West mrgenixus@gmail.com wrote:
technically, if vcdiff is already installed, couldn't it be leveraged to manage any changes made since the file in the filesystem changed? just a thought.
I'm afraid I hardly dislike this idea. VCdiff was indented to work together with VC-systems like subversion or git. Implementing a feature like supporting a diff between the loaded version of a file and the version remote (either on 127.0.0.1 or wherever) will need a big bunch of changes done (including a own folk of a generic diff tool) on this plugin IMHO. If this is a useful feature at all, this should be done as an extra plugin.
Just my 2 ct. Frank
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 00:48:50 +0100, Frank Lanitz frank@frank.uvena.de wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:16:37 -0700 Ben West mrgenixus@gmail.com wrote:
technically, if vcdiff is already installed, couldn't it be leveraged to manage any changes made since the file in the filesystem changed? just a thought.
I'm afraid I hardly dislike this idea. VCdiff was indented to work together with VC-systems like subversion or git. Implementing a feature like supporting a diff between the loaded version of a file and the version remote (either on 127.0.0.1 or wherever) will need a big bunch
Uhh, I didn't even think of this way. I assumed Ben suggested this for files which are already under any version control system. Anyway, the requested feature would then more or less hard depend on the vcdiff/geanyvc plugin which is not an option.
of changes done (including a own folk of a generic diff tool) on this
The 'diff' command could be used, but stil...
Regards, Enrico
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 13:57:10 +0100 Enrico Tröger enrico.troeger@uvena.de wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 00:48:50 +0100, Frank Lanitz frank@frank.uvena.de wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:16:37 -0700 Ben West mrgenixus@gmail.com wrote:
technically, if vcdiff is already installed, couldn't it be leveraged to manage any changes made since the file in the filesystem changed? just a thought.
I'm afraid I hardly dislike this idea. VCdiff was indented to work together with VC-systems like subversion or git. Implementing a feature like supporting a diff between the loaded version of a file and the version remote (either on 127.0.0.1 or wherever) will need a big bunch
Uhh, I didn't even think of this way. I assumed Ben suggested this for files which are already under any version control system. Anyway, the requested feature would then more or less hard depend on the vcdiff/geanyvc plugin which is not an option.
Hey Ben, put some light into it here ;)
Cheers, Frank
I actually mean making the tool more general, and making more use of it, not neccesarily saying anything baout version control, bear with me while I digress:
I haven't used the vcdiff tool much: typically, I use meld for that, but there's no reason I couldn't use vcdiff -- My point was, I dislike file change notifications in general, and that rather than forcing me to update "right now!" the ability to add changes that were made to the file in the filesystem later might be useful: say I made the same change twice using vim and geany in oder to fix the same problem, got distracted, yada yada...
*Maybe more to the point:* I'm sure the vcdiff tool is great and all, but maybe dissasembling the diff tool from the vc tool and making it possible to simply diff a file and it's file-system copy might be a useful feature? say, add a "view differnces button". Unless I'm mistaken about how plugins work, it wouldn't *have* to hard-depend, but if it was available, the file-change notification could defer to the diff tool for merge, replace, etc. You could probably USE meld to do this. Furthermore, if (it's a big if) the file in question is being edited via GIO on a remove machine and someone else edits the file you're editing (granted, this shouldn't happen, but say it's the apache config) you maybe don't want to clobber your edits with their edits? If this is too hard, pointless, undesirable, consider me no more than a voice shouting randomly and carry-on as though I said nothing -- this change isn't something I'm invested in, I'm just trying to contribute constructively to the discussion.
/ˈmɪstər/ /ˈdʒɛnəsɪs/@/dʒi/ /meɪl/ /dɒt/ /kɒm/ Benjamin West
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 6:11 AM, Frank Lanitz frank@frank.uvena.de wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 13:57:10 +0100 Enrico Tröger enrico.troeger@uvena.de wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 00:48:50 +0100, Frank Lanitz frank@frank.uvena.de wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:16:37 -0700 Ben West mrgenixus@gmail.com wrote:
technically, if vcdiff is already installed, couldn't it be leveraged to manage any changes made since the file in the filesystem changed? just a thought.
I'm afraid I hardly dislike this idea. VCdiff was indented to work together with VC-systems like subversion or git. Implementing a feature like supporting a diff between the loaded version of a file and the version remote (either on 127.0.0.1 or wherever) will need a big bunch
Uhh, I didn't even think of this way. I assumed Ben suggested this for files which are already under any version control system. Anyway, the requested feature would then more or less hard depend on the vcdiff/geanyvc plugin which is not an option.
Hey Ben, put some light into it here ;)
Cheers, Frank -- http://frank.uvena.de/en/
Geany mailing list Geany@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 21:36:56 -0700, Ben West mrgenixus@gmail.com wrote:
I actually mean making the tool more general, and making more use of it, not neccesarily saying anything baout version control, bear with me while I digress:
I haven't used the vcdiff tool much: typically, I use meld for that, but there's no reason I couldn't use vcdiff -- My point was, I dislike file change notifications in general, and that rather than forcing me to update "right now!" the ability to add changes that were made to the file in the filesystem later might be useful: say I made the same change twice using vim and geany in oder to fix the same problem, got distracted, yada yada...
Sounds like a perfect requirement specification for a version control system :). Nothing what an editor should do.
*Maybe more to the point:* I'm sure the vcdiff tool is great and all, but maybe dissasembling the diff tool from the vc tool and making it possible to simply diff a file and it's file-system copy might be a useful feature? say, add a "view differnces button". Unless I'm mistaken about how plugins work, it wouldn't *have* to hard-depend, but if it was available, the
This could be implemented completely as a plugin: it adds a toolbar button, menu item, whatever to compare the current contents of the editor window with the file contents stored on disk. The plugin could use/depend on the 'diff' command line tool to create the diff or implement an own diff'ing algorithm or whatever. But this will not happen in Geany itself.
file-change notification could defer to the diff tool for merge, replace, etc. You could probably USE meld to do this. Furthermore, if
lol no, never. Meld depends on all the Gnome stuff, Geany will never depend on any Gnome tools, sorry.
(it's a big if) the file in question is being edited via GIO on a remove machine and someone else edits the file you're editing
Note, that Geany won't check remote files at all for disk changes. Regular polling is too slow, GIO based notification doesn't support remote files (see http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=557951).
(granted, this shouldn't happen, but say it's the apache config) you maybe don't want to clobber your edits with their edits? If this is too hard, pointless, undesirable, consider me no more than a voice shouting randomly and carry-on as though I said nothing -- this change isn't something I'm invested in, I'm just trying to contribute constructively to the discussion.
Yeah, much appreciated. But still, this is far beyond what Geany should and will provide. We are still aiming at 'fast and lightweight'. There is no point in adding tons of features just to have them, then we are going to create just another Anjuta or even Eclipse...
Regards, Enrico
ok -- glad I took the time to clarify. thanks for the below. that is Why I am using geany.
Yeah, much appreciated. But still, this is far beyond what Geany should and will provide. We are still aiming at 'fast and lightweight'. There is no point in adding tons of features just to have them, then we are going to create just another Anjuta or even Eclipse...
Regards, Enrico
-- Get my GPG key from http://www.uvena.de/pub.asc
Geany mailing list Geany@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany
I personally would consider using another software in such a case. The main intention of this dialog is not to annoy users (although during the last days it actually did, sorry :D) but the dialog should warn users and prevent possible data loss by overwriting external changes.
It still does, although a bit rarer. But I can still experience this.
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 22:55:56 +0100, Filip Gruszczyński gruszczy@gmail.com wrote:
*off-topic*
I personally would consider using another software in such a case. The main intention of this dialog is not to annoy users (although during the last days it actually did, sorry :D) but the dialog should warn users and prevent possible data loss by overwriting external changes.
It still does, although a bit rarer. But I can still experience this.
I'll have a look at the weekend, sorry for all the inconvenience. Not sure what I'm doing wrong, it just works here :).
Regards, Enrico
I'll have a look at the weekend, sorry for all the inconvenience. Not sure what I'm doing wrong, it just works here :).
Cool :) I am just in the middle of the development and got used so much to Geany, that I can hardly accept having to code in GEdit :-) But those notifications don't happen so often anymore, so I even got back to Geany ;-) I can survivie additional enter from time to time.
Sorry I wasn't clear enough, my complaint isn't that the dialog is modal on the file, that is fine, my complaint is that it is modal on the entire editor, once that dialog comes up I can't do anything else until I've figured out why that file changed and what I want to do about it. I can't even close the file, let alone edit some other file.
You are right about the firefox save passwords dialog being easy to miss, the gedit file changed notification is about 4x as big, has a big exclamation mark on it and prevents editing of the file until you deal with it. However you can still use the rest of the editor, you can switch to other tabs and use them as normal and you can close the current tab.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 8:14 AM, Enrico Tröger enrico.troeger@uvena.de wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 12:03:06 +1100, Gordon Wrigley gordon.wrigley@gmail.com wrote:
I'd like to discuss the possibility of changing to a non modal prompt for file change notification. I would prefer a system like gedits, I couldn't find a screenshot of this but for those without access to gedit it is comparable to the handling of popups and passwords in newer versions of firefox.
So far, the count is 2 vs 1 votes :).
I totally don't like those, whatever it is called, bars. At least not for important things and especially not when user input is needed (reload? yes/no).
I saw these things only once or twice in Gedit but I know them from Firefox and it's really annoying. I remember the first few times I just didn't realise them at all and wondered why Firefox isn't asking anymore whether I want to save the entered password.
Such bars may be ok for informational messages or notices but definitely not for warnings or questions with user feedback.
In case of the 'Do you want to reload' dialog when a file has changed, this should be modal as it doesn't make much sense when you already have typed 5 other lines in the file and then you notice 'oh, there is a box asking me to reload the file'. I personally would consider using another software in such a case. The main intention of this dialog is not to annoy users (although during the last days it actually did, sorry :D) but the dialog should warn users and prevent possible data loss by overwriting external changes.
Regards, Enrico
-- Get my GPG key from http://www.uvena.de/pub.asc
Geany mailing list Geany@uvena.de http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 09:04:04 +1100, Gordon Wrigley gordon.wrigley@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry I wasn't clear enough, my complaint isn't that the dialog is modal on the file, that is fine, my complaint is that it is modal on the entire editor, once that dialog comes up I can't do anything else until I've figured out why that file changed and what I want to do about it. I can't even close the file, let alone edit some other file.
Ok, sorry. I totally misunderstood you, my bad.
You are right about the firefox save passwords dialog being easy to miss, the gedit file changed notification is about 4x as big, has a big exclamation mark on it and prevents editing of the file until you
Yes, I just checked the Gedit notification. It is indeed big and red enough to not be missed that easy.
deal with it. However you can still use the rest of the editor, you can switch to other tabs and use them as normal and you can close the current tab.
I agree that it would be a nice improvement to 'lock' only the externally modified document instead of the whole editor. Though I still don't like those 'embedded' notification areas that much but this is just me. The bigger problem would be the portion of code which has to be rewritten to make this possible. I'm not totally against it but I won't implement it myself, sorry.
Regards, Enrico