[Glade-devel] state of the project

[Tristan Van Berkom <tristan van berkom gmail com> (Tristan Van Berkom)]

On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 22:54:50 +0200, Paolo Borelli <pborelli katamail com> wrote:
[...]
> I'd suggest to keep discussion on the ML so that it's easier for
> everybody to follow and reply.
> At the same time I suggest to put all the patches in bugzilla so that
> thy do not get lost, especially considering the fact that the lack of a
> clear maintainer may mean that they are not applied immediately to the
> tree.
>
> Patches should be created with "cvs diff -up" to make reviewing easier
> and should not be split up by file; new files should be attached
> separately. Please do not gzip them: gzip patches are just a pain.

Understood, I'll send emails with links to patches in bugzilla.

> > I have to admit that this is a little clunky for me, ATM I'm working
> > full time on glade3 and I seem to be the only one here without a
> > cvs account, Is there a formal request I have to make somewhere for
> > that ?
>
> I can understand your pain... usually the procedure to get cvs write
> access is to contribute patches and when the maintainer feels he can
> trust your changes he will "sponsor" your request. Lack of a maintainer
> clearly makes this procedure more difficult.
>
> Some possible solutions that comes to my mind are to try to maintain a
> patchset against upstream or try setup an "arch" repository for
> glade3... I never used arch, but I know there are other projects on
> cvs.gnome.org that switched to it (Rhythmbox, MLView,...).
>
> Since you for now you have to keep a patchset against upstream, I
> suggest you to only make strictly needed changes leaving out coding
> style changes and other noise.

Yes, 
     I'm just trying to get the code inline and readable (in whatever coding
style, as long as it is consistant) in order to do some real work, you do
get my drift... But I agree I'll just have to suffer untill this gets
a little easier...
but it really pains me :-/

> With regard to long lines, I find really looooong lines annoying too,
> but at the same time things like
>
> function_name
>         (arg, arg)
>
> are IMHO just plain ugly and I find that solution way worse than the
> long line itself. After all it's 2004 and we can well expect people to
> use an editor/terminal which is not limited to 80 cols ;-)

Yes, 
   we can all zoom way out and squint at our screens, not everyone has
the luxury of 27" monitors.

So this is the one and only point that I have to disagree with; but if everyone
would rather sticking to /really long lines/ instead, then I'll just
have to suffer
with the wrapping.

On a lighter note, tomorrow I'm going to tackle this one if nobody wants
to discuss it first:
    http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=154727

Cheers,
                                                                 -Tristan