[Geany-devel] GTK+ Version Bump to 2.18

[Nick Treleaven]

On 13/10/2011 00:55, Matthew Brush wrote:
> On 11-10-12 07:04 AM, Nick Treleaven wrote:
>> On 12/10/2011 02:58, Matthew Brush wrote:
>>>
>>> I've also been working on getting rid of some of the uses of sealed
>>> members (ex. widget->window as opposed to
>>> gtk_widget_get_window(widget)). It seems many of the accessor functions
>>> were added between 2.12 and 2.18. One of the functions that comes to
>>> mind that needs 2.18 and could be used in several places in Geany is
>>> gtk_widget_get_allocation().
>>
>> OTOH, those functions are trivial to support on < 2.18, if there were a
>> reason to prefer lower versions. If there's not too many.
>>
>
> There's lots :) [1]
 > [1]
 > 
https://github.com/codebrainz/geany/commit/06e27060fd5022d22160d51ca62c3601f649f28f 


That includes changes that work on GTK 2.0 - what I meant is how many 
functions are added in 2.18 that aren't in 2.16 that could be included with:

#if gtk < 2.18
bar gtk_foo_get_bar(){return foo->bar;}
#endif

I didn't look at the diff much because it didn't really answer this.

>>> So I was wondering if anyone was opposed to going from GTK+ 2.12 to 2.18
>>> as the minimum supported GTK+ version. IMO, if we are going to raise the
>>> version this release cycle, it makes sense to do so sooner rather than
>>> later to maximize the time for finding and fixing bugs and so on.
>>
>> From my own POV I would prefer lower versions for now - I have 2.16 on
>> my main machine. I could update but I'm still reeling a little from the
>> github switch ;-)
>>
>
> So the answer to my question in the other thread about what specifically
> sets the minimum GTK+ version Geany supports is: Whatever Nick is
> running :)

Not necessarily, I could upgrade as I'm on Windows, but for now I'd 
prefer not to.

A more important issue is maximising who can contribute to Geany, so 
it's good to not require anything released in e.g. the last two years 
without good reason. I know 2.16 is probably before that though.

>> So I would go for 2.16 overall if this brings us Glade 3 support.
>
> It should, but I haven't thoroughly tested it with GTK+ 2.16 yet. Did
> you try the gtkbuilder branch yet on your 2.16 install by any chance?

No, I haven't tried git branching yet. I'll let you know when I do.

> Anyway, I won't push for GTK+ 2.18 any more if some core Geany devs are
> against it.

I'm not completely against it but just want to make sure it brings real 
benefits for us.