[Geany-Devel] On Deprecation of Platforms
nick.treleaven at xxxxx
Mon Oct 7 15:53:42 UTC 2013
On 04/10/2013 04:09, Lex Trotman wrote:
> On 4 October 2013 02:35, Nick Treleaven <nick.treleaven at btinternet.com>wrote:
>> On 03/10/2013 15:37, Lex Trotman wrote:
>>>>> - holding us at an unreasonably old GTK version
>>>>> Sorry? I don't think Windows support has anything to do with the GTK
>>>>> version we support. If anything, it's rather the contrary, providing a
>>>>> newer version for Windows installers is far easier than forcing users of
>>>>> old GNU/Linux distros to build a new version.
>>> Well, as I understand it, moving the windows packages to GTK 2.24 is the
>>> only thing holding us at 2.16. As there was a deathly hush on the ML
>>> thread when volunteers were requested to try it, I guess nobody is willing
>>> to support it, even just for that.
>> I'm not sure that was the main reason, I argued that LTS distros was a
>> reason for keeping older dependencies. I expect there are newer runtimes, I
>> heard gtk 3 on Windows works reasonably well since last year or so.
> IIRC the LTS distros were 2.18 at least. GTK3 Geany for Linux is currently
> quite stable, I use it every day. GTK3 on windows could be ok, but again
> we come to the point that nobody is going to do the work of testing it and
> then changing the release and nightly builder.
> Since the only way Windows is "stopping" any upgrades of the oldest version
> is the builders using 2.16, maybe stopping windows support is just no
> longer making those packages, leaving the code inside #ifdef OS_WIN32 there
> for you to build it with your preferred GTK.
I don't understand sorry, why is 2.16 needed for Windows? I have newer
>> > >- few of the developers have access to a representative development
>>>>>>> setup (no WinXP on a VM is hardly representative)
>>>>> I indeed don't, but AFAIK Nick and Matthew does
>>> And I should add, its not reasonable if you are the only one either, the
>>> fixes needed to windows will deprive the rest of Geany of any of your
>>> effort. Its not as if there are no other things to do:)
>> A slightly broken Windows version is infinitely better than none at all. I
>> use it and don't experience any significant issues that can't be worked
> But thats not a universal experience, and again there is nobody who is
> looking at why and how to fix it. At least the Linux version gets a slow
> trickle of changes.
You are exaggerating.
>> >Anyway, although I agree the Windows version isn't as good as it should
>>>>> right now, I don't really see the problem it causes to the rest of
>>>>> Geany. And if we indeed clean some things up a little like Matthew
>>>>> suggests, it could even be just fine (Windows dialogs, come on).
>> I don't mind if Matt wants to remove the Windows dialogs. Enrico put them
>> in, I think they're not really necessary.
> Again "somebody else do it", Matt having already said he won't. :)
I must have misread him then.
How about this, I make the Windows dialog pref a various pref and merge
the file overwrite PR. Various prefs are already warned about.
>> Again, the issue is, without anybody to do it, all that happens is that
>>> rest of Geany gets less love.
>>> Lots of people over the years have put forward suggestions, but none of
>>> them have even dropped a PR or patch, let alone assisted with maintenance.
>>> Its not nice to cut off a platform, but if everybody expects others to
>>> the work, then we may have no choice or the whole project will collapse.
>> ^^^ *Massive* exaggeration. Most open source projects have unresolved
>> bugs. Unfunded open source projects work mostly because developers fix
>> problems that they themselves experience. I don't see any significant
>> problems with the Windows version that affect me.
> And you do work on the problems that affect you, and thank you for that,
> but "support" is also answering bug reports and questions on IRC, otherwise
> you get the current situation of Matt and I blundering about in the dark
> (well Matt might have a small torch, but I'm in the dark). I'm not
> criticising you or suggesting you take over the role again, I'm looking for
> people to help you.
We shouldn't deprecate it, that won't help anyone.
>> I'm not saying delete anything inside #ifdef OS_WIN32 tomorrow. But also
>>> in fairness some warning that platform specific code is not being
>>> maintained adequately needs to be given to Windows users, and their help
>>> sought, and this is one way I can think of that makes it clear. Other
>>> suggestions are welcome:)
>> You are massively overreacting. If we really cared so much about user
>> experience we would make more bugfix releases, but we don't have the
>> resources for that.
> Indeed, and that is the problem I'm trying to address. If we don't make it
> clear to people that they need to step up and help, we will get nowhere.
You can call for contributors. Don't annoy Windows users.
More information about the Devel