[Geany-devel] Glade 3 version?

Matthew Brush mbrush at xxxxx
Mon Dec 19 22:19:18 UTC 2011

On 12/19/2011 09:37 AM, Nick Treleaven wrote:
> On 19/12/2011 14:40, Matthew Brush wrote:
>> On 12/19/2011 05:54 AM, Nick Treleaven wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> I tried opening data/geany.glade with the latest Glade, 3.8.1 on
>>> Windows. Pressing Save writes a lot of changes to the file, 260 Kb. It
>>> seems to be mostly reordering property tag lines for
>>> "use_action_appearance".
>>> Also, when I added 2 menu items it created duplicate image ids for
>>> image1, image2.
>> Not sure what this means.
> It stopped Geany from starting with an error message about image1 being
> defined twice.

I'm not sure why it made duplicate IDs, but I guess we should try and 
start naming things properly now, at least new stuff we add.  This is 
what I've been doing since the conversion, but there's still lots of 
default/crazy widget names in there :)

>> IMO, if you can't get the changes down to less, it doesn't really matter
>> if there's a bunch of noise in the commit, it's not like anyone really
>> needs to be able to read it, as long as the commit message describes
> I disagree no one needs to read it. glade diffs should be reviewed by
> the author the same as all other code checkins IMO.

Meh, I tend to think of it as a binary blob.  We can't hand-edit it and 
Glade is free to do whatever it wants outside of our control.  What's 
more, the point of using Glade is to avoid having to hand code this 
10,000 line XML beast.  That being said (see below) if we can do 
something to make the commits nicer, I agree we should.

> I'm hoping that we can standardise on 3.8.1 so we can review diffs and
> also avoid adding noise/bloat to the git repo each time someone uses a
> different version of Glade than the last commit.

I'm all for this, I can easily remove 3.8.0 and switch to 3.8.1.  It 
does seem like 3.8.1 is the last "stable" release before our version of 
GTK+ is not supported anymore (3.10), so it makes sense and is 
convenient for use on Windows with a binary available.  I guess we 
should/could note this in the HACKING file or something?

Out of curiosity though, if we want to avoid noise/bloat in the Git 
repository, why don't we untrack generated files like geany.html which 
are already available online, in the source tarballs, and in all 
releases (including win32 IIRC)?  The usefulness of this is pretty slim, 
one has to:

- Be using development version of Geany from Git, and
- Be unable to read a text file with the very same content, and
- Have no internet access (for online manual), and
- Have no release install or tarball available, and
- Be unable to install a simple Python package to generate the HTML

Just a thought, since I cringe just a little every time I see a commit 
with this file in it :)

Matthew Brush

More information about the Devel mailing list