[Geany-Devel] GTK version policy
lars_paulsen at xxxxx
Sun Feb 25 09:08:05 UTC 2018
Hello Lex, hello Matthew,
> Not sure GTK2 is worth too much effort though. GTK2 __will__ reduce
> in usage, especially when GTK4 is out later this year.
I agree to Matthew. You mentioned GTK4. Wouldn't that also be a reason
to put the things in a common lib?
If I already have compatibility code called in a plugin then later I
only need to change the compatibility lib/header and not the calling plugin.
(and maybe this is just a "nice thought" because things diverge to much
;-) But I hope it's possible for the basic GUI things)
But I see that we all do not share the same opinion here and I do not
want to end up being the only one supporting that approach and:
A: be the only one contributing to a compatibility lib or B: be the only
one who's using it in my plugin
Don't get me wrong, that's fine. But I will just wait with doing any GTK
compatibility related stuff before we have a broad agreement in which
direction we want to go with geany plugins regarding GTK2/3/4
compatibility and related stuff like VTE compatibility.
P.S.: I will leave the PR for the scope plugin open as a reminder. I
want to port the scope plugin to GTK3 and there is at least one user who is
interested in still having GTK2 support so I would like to support both
at the end. I will definitely continue the work once the discussion has
On 25.02.2018 00:19, Matthew Brush wrote:
> On 2018-02-23 02:52 PM, Lex Trotman wrote:
>> As I have been saying for a while, even for existing plugins I would
>> make the GTK3 one a separate plugin [...]
> This isn't a good idea because it causes way too much unnecessary
> maintenance burden. To save some #ifdef in a single file to smooth
> over the few differences between GTK+ 2 and 3, you're recommending to
> duplicate tens of thousands of lines of plugin code. This not only
> includes duplicating all of the C code, but also all of the build
> system code, translations, docs, etc.
>> With a #ifdefed plugin it takes effort to build it to support both
> It's less effort to maintain a compatibility file/module with the few
> differences rather than having loads of duplicated
> code/infrastructure. It causes less burden on contributors and
> maintainers to edit a single code base with a few #ifdef stuff than to
> try and port changes between diverged plugins, or to edit one or the
> other, further diverging the forks.
> To give an example, PR #697 ports Scope plugin from GTK+2 to GTK+3 and
> only touches +57,-26 lines in 7 files. That's roughly the number of
> lines which diverge between GTK+2 and GTK+3 for the plugin, of a total
> of around 12,000 total lines of code in 44 files (estimate of only C
> code using cloc utility). That's around 1% of code which differs
> between GTK+2 and GTK+3; IMO not enough to warrant a fork/duplicate.
>> and again to untangle it when GTK2 goes away, with two plugins you
>> just delete one
> Going the route of isolating the differences into a single
> compatibility header/module makes it even easier to drop GTK+2
> support. For example in Geany core C code, we only have to delete the
> one gtkcompat.h header and GTK+2 support is gone. There is surely some
> other #ifdef stuff mixed into other parts of the code, but it's far
> less work to delete it later than the amount of work to maintain
> separate forks for GTK+2/3 when 99% of the code is in common.
> Matthew Brush
> Devel mailing list
> Devel at lists.geany.org
More information about the Devel