[Geany-Devel] RFC: Policy for Glade File Updates

[Thomas Martitz]

Am So, 6.10.2013, 15:39 schrieb Thomas Martitz:
>
>
> Lex Trotman <elextr at gmail.com> schrieb:
>>On 6 October 2013 22:21, Thomas Martitz <
>>thomas.martitz at student.htw-berlin.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Am 03.10.2013 02:00, schrieb Lex Trotman:
>>>
>>>
>>>>     Is there a problem with this approach?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That means when the minimum version of GTK is increased we will have
>>to
>>>> upgrade to version of Glade that supports the new widgets that come
>>with
>>>> the new GTK.  And then apply the fixes.  So along with lack of
>>windows
>>>> maintenance (please lets deprecate it) we now have Glade upgrade
>>issues
>>>> slowing the movement of GTK versions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ok I see you try to avoid anything which could possible mean more
>>> maintenance work, even if only in theory :)
>>>
>>> Anyway, the glade version needs only to be updated if we also make
>>use of
>>> newer widgets _and_ don't implement them programmatically. This seems
>>like
>>> a very rare event, and even then applying fixes is as easy as git
>>rebase.
>>> For the vast majority of time our set-in-stone, fixed Glade can be
>>used
>>> without extra effort.
>>>
>>> But you need to see it from another POV: Doing this enables us, and
>>more
>>> importantly new and fresh contributors, to use Glade for the Geany
>>UI. This
>>> clearly outweighs the very little extra maintenance effort. And I
>>would
>>> argue that this even reduces maintenance effort overall since we
>>don't have
>>> to worry about geany.xml anymore.
>>>
>>>
>>Well, I am wondering how much change is going to happen to the UI
>>within
>>the life of Geany on 2.x?  But if you think there are major changes to
>>be
>>made then I understand the attraction of using Glade rather than
>>editing
>>XML (shudder).
>>
>>Its not just using different versions either, some versions of Glade
>>seem
>>to delight in producing noise no matter how little you do :(
>>
>>So I guess the first step would be for you to identify a Glade version
>>that
>>produces a file that both GTK2 and GTK3 Geany correctly read and that
>>doesn't produce lots of noise each change.  Then you need to make the
>>modifications you mentioned.
>>
>>Without knowing that such a Glade exists the whole question is
>>theoretical
>>:)
>>
>>If it exists then its certainly a possible solution.
>>

I forked glade at github and made two fixes to it: [1]

- fixed the unstable output (mostly)
- fixed stripping of "icon-name" attribute of GtkIconFactory. It's still
not editable in the GUI but it glade at least shouldn't remove it anymore
from existing XML

Seeing that 3.8.x is maintained actively at upstream I will try to get the
changes upstream. For the first fix I already opened [2].

Please see if it makes glade usable for us. It worked in my (limited)
testing.

Best regards.

[1] https://github.com/kugel-/glade/tree/glade-3-8-fixes
[2] https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=709609