[Geany-devel] Improving usability and handling for Geany-Plugins
lists.ban at xxxxx
Wed Jan 19 18:26:02 UTC 2011
Le 19/01/2011 18:45, Dimitar Zhekov a écrit :
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 23:13:51 +0100
> Enrico Tröger <enrico.troeger at uvena.de> wrote:
>> In fact, I propose to do exactly this: all plugins of the combined
>> geany-plugins releases should have the version of the geany-plugins
>> release itself. Everything else would just cause confusion, IMO.
> So we are going to have my_plugin version 0.5, followed by 0.20, and
> then 0.6 or 0.7? Which one is the latest?
I personally don't think that g-p is only a release facility, most
plugins that are part of it are also developed on g-p, etc., and
generally don't have standalone release (AFAIK).
> Or, if the plugin version always matches Geany version (not in
> releases only), then the plugins have no their own version at all.
That's why I don't really feel good with the combined version (though I
don't really care finally): plugins don't really have a version that
shows something about their status.
E.g., g-p 0.20 is the first release of WebHelper, so the version 0.20
don't seem to be justified.
However, again, I don't really care because I think both ways have
arguments for them.
> I see Enrico doesn't like it, but maybe we should have something like:
> #ifndef PLUGINS_VERSION
> #define PLUGINS_VERSION " - Custom Build"
> PLUGIN_SET_[TRANSLATABLE]_INFO(..., "0.5" PLUGINS_VERSION, ...)
> plugins build system:
> gcc ... -DPLUGINS_VERSION=\" - Geany Plugins 0.20\"
The main problem I see is translations: it would be hard to make this
support translations. It would basically need a new arg to
PLUGIN_SET_INFO, like, don't know, origin, but this would break the
backward compatibility of the macro -- or add a new one, but...
And regarding my first point above, I'm not really sure about it.
However, it looks better than 0.0.1-gp0.20.
More information about the Devel