[Geany] relative paths in project files: is there an option?

Stephan Beal sgbeal at xxxxx
Thu Jun 30 11:35:18 UTC 2011


On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Lex Trotman <elextr at gmail.com> wrote:

> From your previous post...
>
> > And i believe that such a use-case lies in the realm of gnome-text-editor
> instead of an IDE. IDEs are (traditionally) designed to manage specific
> source-based projects, not OS-wide collections of arbitrary trees.
>
> Thats a very narrow view of what an IDE is/can be used for.  The
> characteristics of an IDE encompass many more features than how they
> manage trees, and those features are not just the prerogative of
> "professional" programmers, it isn't reasonable to use Geany as open
> source software and say that its features shouldn't be available to
> other open source projects, however they are organised, and even if
>

If it's not geared towards development then it shouldn't be called an IDE
(Integrated Development Environment), but a Project Management tool (which
is going a bit far, i think, seeing that a project is simply a list of open
files) or "Glorified Editor".

Geany is filled to the brim with software-development-specific features - it
is unequivocally an IDE, and IDEs are for managing source projects. Source
projects are, almost without exception, rooted under a single directory
(perhaps consisting of several modules checked out from different sources,
but that's besides the point). i say "almost without exception" because if i
say "without exception" someone will prove me wrong. But in my not
inconsiderable experience the term "always" is more accurate.



> they don't have .geany files in their repositories.  And copying a
> .geany into the working tree is going to invite the attention of the
> vcs.  And no you can't add *.geany to the .(your vcs here)ignore file,
> its under control too.
>

One is never forced to add a file to vcs just because svn reports a '?' next
to it in 'svn status'. Yes, it's slightly annoying to have '?' show up in
the status, but it's nothing new (object files show up there, too).



> On 30 June 2011 20:25, Stephan Beal <sgbeal at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Joerg Desch <jd.vvd at web.de> wrote:
> > However, even if the session handling is changed to be
> > per-project-file-instance (per USER would still have hosed me here), i
> feel
> > very strongly that having absolute paths in the project file is
> > fundamentally wrong.
>
> Well, given that I am saying that really we shouldn't have *any*
> session paths in the project file I guess we sort of agree here.  Just
> not about how to fix it.
>

Fair enough. i admit that i am a bit of a hard-liner/hard-ass on this point,
but that's because i think Geany is trying to fill the "please everyone"
role, and at the same time breaking this important feature for the core
(99%+) market - developers who work under "rooted" software trees.

-- 
----- stephan beal
http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.geany.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20110630/367e5e63/attachment.html>


More information about the Users mailing list