[Geany-devel] GIO saving made configurable?

Lex Trotman elextr at xxxxx
Sun Jun 19 22:49:51 UTC 2011

> Just tell me -- what's the advantages of 2 over 3 then? OK, it wouldn't
> depend on gvfs-fuse.

Yes, and it is safe (I think) if it keeps the backup file.

>> [...]
>> PS just for info last time I looked Gedit used option 2 but with
>> special implementation dependent hacking to make it safe.  Maybe
>> stealing that is the best option, then its biggest downside is being
>> slow sometimes.
> Yes, we could make GIO saving safe (e.g. handle writes failure) by
> haking on until #602412 [1] get fixed properly.  This looks kinda ugly,
> but would at least provide safe saving, just leaving out the temporary
> file on failure.

My understanding is that the nasty hack in Gedit is to work around this problem.

> But it wouldn't address the cases where GIO won't success to properly
> write (e.g. the bugs I linked in previous mail).  Maybe it is fixable in
> GIO though, so reporting those to them might be a start point -- though
> I can't tell whether it's reproducible in recent GIO versions, nor what
> kind of problem it is.
3220784 doesn't say if safe file saving is set (ie its using type1),
its the default and doesn't use GIO but no one asked the OP also notes
gedit works so stealing their hack would work.
3184594 is using GIO, the temporary file is a GIO name.  The question
is what sort of filesystem does virtual box report the host to the
guest as, this may confuse GIO.
3126535 doesn't say if safe file saving is set (ie its using type1),
its the default and doesn't use GIO but no one asked the OP

> Le 19/06/2011 13:42, Enrico Tröger a écrit :
>> On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 10:28:00 +1000, Lex wrote:
>>> So I would say that all three need to stay, and the choice between >>
> GIO and the c library needs to be made a preference not a compile
>>> time option.
>> I think so too.
>> I'm only afraid how to give this choice to the user. This needs to be
>> well documented and probably should go into a normal. not hidden pref
>> and so should be in the preferences dialog.
> Agreed. However, I can't see how to present this to the user in a way
> she can take a proper decision... In the meantime, I think I can commit
> the patch I proposed -- we will still be able to make it a visible pref
> later -- nope? Though, maybe it'll make us lazy to do the change... :D

I agree that it is important enough to add the patch as an interim
until the UI or some other fix can be worked out.


More information about the Devel mailing list