|
List Info
Thread: My notes to the BoF minutes
|
|
| My notes to the BoF minutes |

|
2007-07-03 12:16:40 |
Hi,
,----
| Topic: Code Quality
| Alex: How can we make sure to keep quality? Shall we
establish a policy?
| Harald: Review work as long as their are immediate.
| Andras: Platform commits can go to the mailing-list?
Harald: That's a lot of noise.
| Harald: Unit testing can ensure to keep stability - but
we can still be open to commits.
| Jens: Policies have to be enforced - tricky with a
community. With the current lack of developers, it doesn't
make sense to write down a policy.
| Harald: Tests can improve getting new developers in -
they'll be less scared if there are tests to verify
behavior.
| Aleix Pol: Maybe the problem is calling it policy - it
should be a recommendation so we won't scare volunteers
away.
| Jens: Once we have 90% test coverage, we can get a
policy in - otherwise new developers have to work in a
different way than all the others.
| Alex: Find a good way to sell the idea of testing to
community.
| Alex: In KDevelop, we have a lot of regressions, tests
are badly needed.
| Johnny: Why not stricly enforce it?
| Harald: We're a community, we shouldn't enforce.
| Andras: New interfaces should be documented by
default.
| Alex: Agreed - this should be a stricter policy.
|
| Action Point: Harald: Write a document why/how to test
for KDevelop.
`----
I'm not so sure about the "don't enforce
test-writing", it takes some
time and brain to write good tests and people may want to
work on new
features than writing tests (I know this people includes me,
it took me
several weeks to finally sit down and complete the test
suite for the
qmake parser).
Having said that: I have no idea how we should test our GUI.
Testing
small widgets like kdeui/ in kdelibs is rather easy, you can
create a
test-executable that creates some events or you can just
display the
widget to the user. However testing the project settings gui
isn't that
easy, as it needs a kdevplatform application, the manager
plugin and a
project.
,----
| Sub-Topic: EBN
| Harald: We can use the EBN to upload scripts to check
our code quality (e.g. enforce documentation on all
interfaces)
|
| Conclusion: Agree - we should make better use of it.
`----
Yeap, currently kdevplatform is nearly krazy-free but there
are quite
many documentation bugs found by the doxygen-checker run on
the ebn.
Fixing such things is something that we can give to new
developers as
"starting point". It allows them to dive into the
API slowly and getting
to know everything while doing something meaningful at the
same time.
,----
| Topic: UIs
| Alex: Gave a history of KDevelop UI
| Jakob: Doesn't like navigate by history - no visual
indication where you'll move
| Harald: Navigating Tabs and navigating history are two
different concepts - should not be mixed
| Jakob: HIG specifies shortcuts for history-based
(Alt-Left/Right) and order-based (Ctrl-Comma/Dot)
navigation
| Harald: Why not involve the HIG group?
| Jens: If I go from one split view to the other, I want
to go back where I was - no matter in which split view.
| Jens: Have to think of new developers vs. old
developers - they have a different amount of files opened at
a time. The file list was not optional. Suggestion: Go back
to tabs - although you don't see all opened files at a time,
but it's a good indicator. Tabs - you see more from the file
name.
| Jens: QuickOpen was coolest feature - but well hidden.
|
| heated discussion too fast to protocol
`----
How can we make a visual representation of many open
files and ease navigation?
I also don't like tabs anymore. At lesat not for KDevelop
Jens
(Dagerbo) actually brought me to try KDev3 without tabs and
all that I'm
really missing is having a small overlay-window that shows
my current
file and the last 5 and next 5 in a list while I cycle
through editing
history (or just file order). IMHO if we'd have this we
don't need any
tabs or other switcher. Just my 2 cents, hope this doesn't
start another
"heated discussion".
How to make QuickOpen more visible / easily usable.
Have a Navigation Menu with such things? Currently
Quick-Open-File
should be relatively easy to find (its in the File menu)
but
Quick-Open-Class/Method are in tools. I think some other
things can be
moved out of tools as well (all those code-formatting stuff
for example)
Status Bar vs. Tab - where to display the current
file info?
How about a toolbar? It needs to be rather short of course,
something
like insert-mod as an icon+INS text, row/col and maybe the
lineending.
If we keep our toolbar small (i.e. few entries, certainly no
navigator
like in kdev3) it shouldn't be a problem to have this there.
,----
| Topic: CMake
| Aleix Pol gave an overview of the CMake status in
KDevelop
|
| Trouble: How to write back changes to a
CMake/qmake/whatever project file that was hand edited?
|
| Alex: Wants to read/write project files without
destroying local modifications
|
| Conclusion: We want to have full read/write support
that preserves local modifications (full parser).
| General agreement that a split between simple graphical
and advanced textual editing is not what we want.
`----
Uhm, so instead what? Full graphical support?? Thats not
really a good
idea. CMake is too complicated and while it may sound neat
to click
together a CMakeLists.txt with a graphical editor this
doesn't work in
practice. At least thats the impression I get at work, where
practically
nobody uses the grapical xml editor in eclipse, but rather
uses the text
version. Instead we make heavy use of auto-completion in
that to close
and create tags as well as filling in attributes and
content.
Or does that just mean that I should be able to edit the
CMakeLists.txt
and the results show up in the simple gui? If thats the case
I'm all for
it ;)
,----
| Question: How about cross-platform code?
| Conclusion: Keep the way of working - the Mac and
Windows guys fix their platforms. Try to use Qt whenever
possible instead of system calls.
|
`----
I guess I should say here that system calls aren't the real
problem (as
long as its standard C/C++ and not some gnu extensions). The
real
problem are external dependecies, like Boost, CommonC++,
Subversion.
Probably also small binary db's like berkley db or samba's
tdb. These
are often not buildable on windows or are a PITA to build
(Subversion is
now buildable, but I still didn't try wether it actually
works, its
probably going to be easier in the future with the next
major release as
their libs will then support dynamic linking).
So whenever somebody wants to add a feature which uses an
external
program or library, it would be nice of him to check wether
it is
supported under windows and if not see if he can easily find
a
replacement.
Andreas
--
Don't let your mind wander -- it's too little to be let out
alone.
_______________________________________________
KDevelop-devel mailing list
KDevelop-devel kdevelop.org
https://barney.cs.uni-potsdam.de/mailman/listinf
o/kdevelop-devel
|
|
| Re: My notes to the BoF minutes |

|
2007-07-03 12:34:53 |
On Tuesday 03 July 2007, Andreas Pakulat wrote:
> I'm not so sure about the "don't enforce
test-writing",
It's rather: don't enforce test-writing before we really
have test in
kdevplatform. Once most of the code has tests it is possible
to make
writing tests mandatory before introducing new classes.
> Having said that: I have no idea how we should test our
GUI.
There are some test tools for GUI (IIRC KDAB and basysKom
has such
tools, have to check out), even if they are not GPL, they
are created
by KDE people and free to use for KDE.
Also it is possible to write tests against GUI classes with
QTestLib. Of
course with such tests you will mostly verify only if the
behavior of
the public methods did change or not (or crashes or not),
but that's
also fine.
> Yeap, currently kdevplatform is nearly krazy-free but
there are quite
> many documentation bugs found by the doxygen-checker
run on the ebn.
More problem is that the documentation is missing in many
cases (or it
is wrong/outdated). That will not be catched by krazy. ;)
But there
will be a review of the interfaces here (without me,
though), and we
agreed to document them. And doing while reviewing would be
a good
thing.
> How can we make a visual representation of many
open files and
> ease navigation?
>
> I also don't like tabs anymore. At lesat not for
KDevelop Jens
> (Dagerbo) actually brought me to try KDev3 without tabs
and all that
> I'm really missing is having a small overlay-window
that shows my
> current file and the last 5 and next 5 in a list while
I cycle
> through editing history (or just file order). IMHO if
we'd have this
> we don't need any tabs or other switcher.
Yes, this is one of the most important issues: grouping,
showing the
neighbours and switching between them. This is not possible
with the
current solution, but was with tabs. So a solution is
needed.
> Have a Navigation Menu with such things? Currently
Quick-Open-File
> should be relatively easy to find (its in the File
menu) but
> Quick-Open-Class/Method are in tools. I think some
other things can
> be moved out of tools as well (all those
code-formatting stuff for
> example)
Hm, a menu might not be good. Think about when you have a
large project
with many files and classes/methods. The drop-down box
approach is
probably better, especially with filtering capabilities.
> | Conclusion: We want to have full read/write
support that
> | preserves local modifications (full parser). General
agreement that
> | a split between simple graphical and advanced textual
editing is
> | not what we want.
>
> `----
>
> Uhm, so instead what? Full graphical support??
I think here the minutes are not correct. As far as I
understood, the
consensus was to write our own parser to support as much
features as
possible from the GUI both for reading AND writing. Users
who don't
want very strange things in CMake, should be able to just
create and
manage their project from the GUI. But the GUI should not
stop anybody
changing the CMakeList.txt file in an editor, and should not
destroy
information that was added in an editor.
> (as long as its standard C/C++ and not some gnu
extensions). The real
> problem are external dependecies, like Boost,
CommonC++, Subversion.
I'm not experienced in this, but this all comes down to the
same thing:
if you can implement something with Qt, do with it.
Andras
--
Quanta Plus developer - http://quanta.kdewebdev.o
rg
K Desktop Environment - http://www.kde.org
_______________________________________________
KDevelop-devel mailing list
KDevelop-devel kdevelop.org
https://barney.cs.uni-potsdam.de/mailman/listinf
o/kdevelop-devel
|
|
| Re: My notes to the BoF minutes |

|
2007-07-03 13:49:10 |
On 7/3/07, Andreas Pakulat <apaku gmx.de> wrote:
> Having said that: I have no idea how we should test our
GUI. Testing
> small widgets like kdeui/ in kdelibs is rather easy,
you can create a
> test-executable that creates some events or you can
just display the
> widget to the user. However testing the project
settings gui isn't that
> easy, as it needs a kdevplatform application, the
manager plugin and a
> project.
That's why we need to sit down and first write tests (like
Jens
suggested) and only there decide whether "write
tests" will be a
recommendation or a policy.
> How to make QuickOpen more visible / easily
usable.
>
> Have a Navigation Menu with such things? Currently
Quick-Open-File
> should be relatively easy to find (its in the File
menu) but
> Quick-Open-Class/Method are in tools. I think some
other things can be
> moved out of tools as well (all those code-formatting
stuff for example)
Don't worry, the minutes say as if we don't have solution at
hands,
but I already have one ;)
> Status Bar vs. Tab - where to display the
current file info?
>
> How about a toolbar? It needs to be rather short of
course, something
> like insert-mod as an icon+INS text, row/col and maybe
the lineending.
> If we keep our toolbar small (i.e. few entries,
certainly no navigator
> like in kdev3) it shouldn't be a problem to have this
there.
The problem here is that the toolbar is too far away from
the editor,
especially if you have split views.
> Or does that just mean that I should be able to edit
the CMakeLists.txt
> and the results show up in the simple gui? If thats the
case I'm all for
> it ;)
Yes, basically we agreed that we should support Aleix's work
on parser.
> So whenever somebody wants to add a feature which uses
an external
> program or library, it would be nice of him to check
wether it is
> supported under windows and if not see if he can easily
find a
> replacement.
And also we'd need to have a system with nightly builds on
linuxes,
macos and windows to make sure we know that the build is
broken on
some systems.
_______________________________________________
KDevelop-devel mailing list
KDevelop-devel kdevelop.org
https://barney.cs.uni-potsdam.de/mailman/listinf
o/kdevelop-devel
|
|
| Re: My notes to the BoF minutes |

|
2007-07-03 13:53:43 |
On 03.07.07 20:34:53, Andras Mantia wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 July 2007, Andreas Pakulat wrote:
> > How can we make a visual representation of
many open files and
> > ease navigation?
> >
> > I also don't like tabs anymore. At lesat not for
KDevelop Jens
> > (Dagerbo) actually brought me to try KDev3 without
tabs and all that
> > I'm really missing is having a small
overlay-window that shows my
> > current file and the last 5 and next 5 in a list
while I cycle
> > through editing history (or just file order). IMHO
if we'd have this
> > we don't need any tabs or other switcher.
>
> Yes, this is one of the most important issues:
grouping, showing the
> neighbours and switching between them. This is not
possible with the
> current solution, but was with tabs. So a solution is
needed.
Right, it was possible to rearrange tabs, even though very
few people
knew how to do it (proven by a thread on kde-devel or
core-devel quite
some time ago)
> > Have a Navigation Menu with such things? Currently
Quick-Open-File
> > should be relatively easy to find (its in the File
menu) but
> > Quick-Open-Class/Method are in tools. I think some
other things can
> > be moved out of tools as well (all those
code-formatting stuff for
> > example)
>
> Hm, a menu might not be good. Think about when you have
a large project
> with many files and classes/methods. The drop-down box
approach is
> probably better, especially with filtering
capabilities.
I think you misunderstood me. I meant a menu where Quick
Open
Class/File/Method entries exist. Which would then open the
quick-open
dialog. I don't think we can stuff the things of that dialog
into a
menu, thats not realistic. Its just that currently the menu
items are
scattered around and are not grouped properly. Those 3 are
navigation
features and thus should be under a Navigation menu.
> > | Conclusion: We want to have full read/write
support that
> > | preserves local modifications (full parser).
General agreement that
> > | a split between simple graphical and advanced
textual editing is
> > | not what we want.
> >
> > `----
> >
> > Uhm, so instead what? Full graphical support??
>
> I think here the minutes are not correct. As far as I
understood, the
> consensus was to write our own parser to support as
much features as
> possible from the GUI both for reading AND writing.
Users who don't
> want very strange things in CMake, should be able to
just create and
> manage their project from the GUI. But the GUI should
not stop anybody
> changing the CMakeList.txt file in an editor, and
should not destroy
> information that was added in an editor.
Aaah, ok. Then we're on the same page
Andreas
--
Today is the first day of the rest of your life.
_______________________________________________
KDevelop-devel mailing list
KDevelop-devel kdevelop.org
https://barney.cs.uni-potsdam.de/mailman/listinf
o/kdevelop-devel
|
|
| Re: My notes to the BoF minutes |

|
2007-07-03 14:08:51 |
On 03.07.07 21:49:10, Alexander Dymo wrote:
> On 7/3/07, Andreas Pakulat <apaku gmx.de> wrote:
> > Or does that just mean that I should be able to
edit the CMakeLists.txt
> > and the results show up in the simple gui? If
thats the case I'm all for
> > it ;)
> Yes, basically we agreed that we should support Aleix's
work on parser.
Uhm, yes of course. I thought that question was solved
already as Matt,
you and me already explained quite extensively to Alexander
N. why its
needed...
> > So whenever somebody wants to add a feature which
uses an external
> > program or library, it would be nice of him to
check wether it is
> > supported under windows and if not see if he can
easily find a
> > replacement.
>
> And also we'd need to have a system with nightly builds
on linuxes,
> macos and windows to make sure we know that the build
is broken on
> some systems.
We already have that for linux (although it is run only
every 8 hours
because its not possible to tell dashboard to update
kdevplatform before
kdevelop). I don't think we need this now for the win32
port, we should
have it in place when the port approaches alpha stage, some
time after
kde4.0 release. But again this needs to happen on a wider
base, i.e.
whole of KDE (its not that slow using free compilers,
although its
slower than on linux)
Andreas
--
You look tired.
_______________________________________________
KDevelop-devel mailing list
KDevelop-devel kdevelop.org
https://barney.cs.uni-potsdam.de/mailman/listinf
o/kdevelop-devel
|
|
| Re: My notes to the BoF minutes |

|
2007-07-03 19:55:52 |
On Jul 3, 2007, at 12:16 PM, Andreas Pakulat wrote:
> Hi,
>
> ,----
> | Topic: Code Quality
> | Alex: How can we make sure to keep quality? Shall
we establish
> a policy?
> | Harald: Review work as long as their are
immediate.
> | Andras: Platform commits can go to the
mailing-list? Harald:
> That's a lot of noise.
> | Harald: Unit testing can ensure to keep stability
- but we can
> still be open to commits.
> | Jens: Policies have to be enforced - tricky with a
community.
> With the current lack of developers, it doesn't make
sense to write
> down a policy.
> | Harald: Tests can improve getting new developers
in - they'll
> be less scared if there are tests to verify behavior.
> | Aleix Pol: Maybe the problem is calling it policy
- it should
> be a recommendation so we won't scare volunteers away.
> | Jens: Once we have 90% test coverage, we can get a
policy in -
> otherwise new developers have to work in a different
way than all
> the others.
> | Alex: Find a good way to sell the idea of testing
to community.
> | Alex: In KDevelop, we have a lot of regressions,
tests are
> badly needed.
> | Johnny: Why not stricly enforce it?
> | Harald: We're a community, we shouldn't enforce.
> | Andras: New interfaces should be documented by
default.
> | Alex: Agreed - this should be a stricter policy.
> |
> | Action Point: Harald: Write a document why/how to
test for
> KDevelop.
> `----
>
> I'm not so sure about the "don't enforce
test-writing", it takes some
> time and brain to write good tests and people may want
to work on new
> features than writing tests (I know this people
includes me, it
> took me
> several weeks to finally sit down and complete the test
suite for the
> qmake parser).
>
> Having said that: I have no idea how we should test our
GUI. Testing
> small widgets like kdeui/ in kdelibs is rather easy,
you can create a
> test-executable that creates some events or you can
just display the
> widget to the user. However testing the project
settings gui isn't
> that
> easy, as it needs a kdevplatform application, the
manager plugin and a
> project.
>
We need to draft a set of guidelines instead of a policy.
Policy
implies required enforcement. Guidelines are things that you
should
be doing because it's in the project's best interests
although they
don't always have to be applied.
We can still use QTestLib for testing our GUI. Or we can go
for a
free as in beer tool that's available such as Squish.
> ,----
> | Sub-Topic: EBN
> | Harald: We can use the EBN to upload scripts to
check our code
> quality (e.g. enforce documentation on all interfaces)
> |
> | Conclusion: Agree - we should make better use of
it.
> `----
>
> Yeap, currently kdevplatform is nearly krazy-free but
there are quite
> many documentation bugs found by the doxygen-checker
run on the ebn.
> Fixing such things is something that we can give to new
developers as
> "starting point". It allows them to dive into
the API slowly and
> getting
> to know everything while doing something meaningful at
the same time.
>
Anything that we can do to take advantage of the facilities
provided
by the EBN would be good, as long as they don't go seriously
overboard.
>
> ,----
> | Topic: UIs
> | Alex: Gave a history of KDevelop UI
> | Jakob: Doesn't like navigate by history - no
visual indication
> where you'll move
> | Harald: Navigating Tabs and navigating history are
two
> different concepts - should not be mixed
> | Jakob: HIG specifies shortcuts for history-based
(Alt-Left/
> Right) and order-based (Ctrl-Comma/Dot) navigation
> | Harald: Why not involve the HIG group?
> | Jens: If I go from one split view to the other, I
want to go
> back where I was - no matter in which split view.
> | Jens: Have to think of new developers vs. old
developers -
> they have a different amount of files opened at a time.
The file
> list was not optional. Suggestion: Go back to tabs -
although you
> don't see all opened files at a time, but it's a good
indicator.
> Tabs - you see more from the file name.
> | Jens: QuickOpen was coolest feature - but well
hidden.
> |
> | heated discussion too fast to protocol
> `----
>
> How can we make a visual representation of many
open files
> and ease navigation?
>
> I also don't like tabs anymore. At lesat not for
KDevelop Jens
> (Dagerbo) actually brought me to try KDev3 without tabs
and all
> that I'm
> really missing is having a small overlay-window that
shows my current
> file and the last 5 and next 5 in a list while I cycle
through editing
> history (or just file order). IMHO if we'd have this we
don't need any
> tabs or other switcher. Just my 2 cents, hope this
doesn't start
> another
> "heated discussion".
>
> How to make QuickOpen more visible / easily
usable.
>
> Have a Navigation Menu with such things? Currently
Quick-Open-File
> should be relatively easy to find (its in the File
menu) but
> Quick-Open-Class/Method are in tools. I think some
other things can be
> moved out of tools as well (all those code-formatting
stuff for
> example)
>
> Status Bar vs. Tab - where to display the
current file info?
>
> How about a toolbar? It needs to be rather short of
course, something
> like insert-mod as an icon+INS text, row/col and maybe
the lineending.
> If we keep our toolbar small (i.e. few entries,
certainly no navigator
> like in kdev3) it shouldn't be a problem to have this
there.
>
> ,----
> | Topic: CMake
> | Aleix Pol gave an overview of the CMake status in
KDevelop
> |
> | Trouble: How to write back changes to a
CMake/qmake/whatever
> project file that was hand edited?
> |
> | Alex: Wants to read/write project files without
destroying
> local modifications
> |
> | Conclusion: We want to have full read/write
support that
> preserves local modifications (full parser).
> | General agreement that a split between simple
graphical and
> advanced textual editing is not what we want.
> `----
>
> Uhm, so instead what? Full graphical support?? Thats
not really a good
> idea. CMake is too complicated and while it may sound
neat to click
> together a CMakeLists.txt with a graphical editor this
doesn't work in
> practice. At least thats the impression I get at work,
where
> practically
> nobody uses the grapical xml editor in eclipse, but
rather uses the
> text
> version. Instead we make heavy use of auto-completion
in that to close
> and create tags as well as filling in attributes and
content.
>
> Or does that just mean that I should be able to edit
the
> CMakeLists.txt
> and the results show up in the simple gui? If thats the
case I'm
> all for
> it ;)
>
It means several things. It means that external changes will
be taken
into account as they occur. (i.e. file watcher). It means
that
KDevelop will provide the ability to graphically edit the
project
being worked on. I don't know to what extent I want the
graphical
editing, but for things like creating new macros or new
Find*.cmake
files, I never intended to be able to do that graphically.
>
> ,----
> | Question: How about cross-platform code?
> | Conclusion: Keep the way of working - the Mac and
Windows guys
> fix their platforms. Try to use Qt whenever possible
instead of
> system calls.
> |
> `----
>
> I guess I should say here that system calls aren't the
real problem
> (as
> long as its standard C/C++ and not some gnu
extensions). The real
> problem are external dependecies, like Boost,
CommonC++, Subversion.
> Probably also small binary db's like berkley db or
samba's tdb. These
> are often not buildable on windows or are a PITA to
build
> (Subversion is
> now buildable, but I still didn't try wether it
actually works, its
> probably going to be easier in the future with the next
major
> release as
> their libs will then support dynamic linking).
>
> So whenever somebody wants to add a feature which uses
an external
> program or library, it would be nice of him to check
wether it is
> supported under windows and if not see if he can easily
find a
> replacement.
>
> Andreas
>
> --
We need to be using the best tool for the job, the platform
it works
best on be damned. (IMHO)
--
Matt
_______________________________________________
KDevelop-devel mailing list
KDevelop-devel kdevelop.org
https://barney.cs.uni-potsdam.de/mailman/listinf
o/kdevelop-devel
|
|
| Re: My notes to the BoF minutes |

|
2007-07-03 19:59:30 |
On Jul 3, 2007, at 12:34 PM, Andras Mantia wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 July 2007, Andreas Pakulat wrote:
>> I'm not so sure about the "don't enforce
test-writing",
> It's rather: don't enforce test-writing before we
really have test in
> kdevplatform. Once most of the code has tests it is
possible to make
> writing tests mandatory before introducing new
classes.
>
>> Having said that: I have no idea how we should test
our GUI.
> There are some test tools for GUI (IIRC KDAB and
basysKom has such
> tools, have to check out), even if they are not GPL,
they are created
> by KDE people and free to use for KDE.
> Also it is possible to write tests against GUI classes
with
> QTestLib. Of
> course with such tests you will mostly verify only if
the behavior of
> the public methods did change or not (or crashes or
not), but that's
> also fine.
>
You can test interaction as well. QTestLib should be fairly
adequate
for our needs, it can intercept signals, etc.
>> Yeap, currently kdevplatform is nearly krazy-free
but there are quite
>> many documentation bugs found by the
doxygen-checker run on the ebn.
>
> More problem is that the documentation is missing in
many cases (or it
> is wrong/outdated). That will not be catched by krazy.
;) But there
> will be a review of the interfaces here (without me,
though), and we
> agreed to document them. And doing while reviewing
would be a good
> thing.
>
>> How can we make a visual representation of
many open files and
>> ease navigation?
>>
>> I also don't like tabs anymore. At lesat not for
KDevelop Jens
>> (Dagerbo) actually brought me to try KDev3 without
tabs and all that
>> I'm really missing is having a small overlay-window
that shows my
>> current file and the last 5 and next 5 in a list
while I cycle
>> through editing history (or just file order). IMHO
if we'd have this
>> we don't need any tabs or other switcher.
>
> Yes, this is one of the most important issues:
grouping, showing the
> neighbours and switching between them. This is not
possible with the
> current solution, but was with tabs. So a solution is
needed.
>
>> Have a Navigation Menu with such things? Currently
Quick-Open-File
>> should be relatively easy to find (its in the File
menu) but
>> Quick-Open-Class/Method are in tools. I think some
other things can
>> be moved out of tools as well (all those
code-formatting stuff for
>> example)
>
> Hm, a menu might not be good. Think about when you have
a large
> project
> with many files and classes/methods. The drop-down box
approach is
> probably better, especially with filtering
capabilities.
>
>> | Conclusion: We want to have full read/write
support that
>> | preserves local modifications (full parser).
General agreement that
>> | a split between simple graphical and advanced
textual editing is
>> | not what we want.
>>
>> `----
>>
>> Uhm, so instead what? Full graphical support??
>
> I think here the minutes are not correct. As far as I
understood, the
> consensus was to write our own parser to support as
much features as
> possible from the GUI both for reading AND writing.
Users who don't
> want very strange things in CMake, should be able to
just create and
> manage their project from the GUI. But the GUI should
not stop anybody
> changing the CMakeList.txt file in an editor, and
should not destroy
> information that was added in an editor.
>
exactly
>> (as long as its standard C/C++ and not some gnu
extensions). The real
>> problem are external dependecies, like Boost,
CommonC++, Subversion.
>
> I'm not experienced in this, but this all comes down to
the same
> thing:
> if you can implement something with Qt, do with it.
>
> Andras
>
No, really, you should use an existing tool if it's the best
tool for
the job rather than reinventing the wheel and the tool. I
tried that
with the cmake support by trying to use cmake itself. It
wasn't the
best tool, so I had to ditch it. Sure, people will say that
it's NIH
syndrome or whatever, but that's fine. I don't care what
they think.
I'm happy with what I got and since I'm the developer,
that's what
should matter.
--
Matt
_______________________________________________
KDevelop-devel mailing list
KDevelop-devel kdevelop.org
https://barney.cs.uni-potsdam.de/mailman/listinf
o/kdevelop-devel
|
|
| Re: My notes to the BoF minutes |

|
2007-07-03 20:00:33 |
On Jul 3, 2007, at 1:49 PM, Alexander Dymo wrote:
> On 7/3/07, Andreas Pakulat <apaku gmx.de> wrote:
>> Having said that: I have no idea how we should test
our GUI. Testing
>> small widgets like kdeui/ in kdelibs is rather
easy, you can create a
>> test-executable that creates some events or you can
just display the
>> widget to the user. However testing the project
settings gui isn't
>> that
>> easy, as it needs a kdevplatform application, the
manager plugin
>> and a
>> project.
> That's why we need to sit down and first write tests
(like Jens
> suggested) and only there decide whether "write
tests" will be a
> recommendation or a policy.
>
>> How to make QuickOpen more visible / easily
usable.
>>
>> Have a Navigation Menu with such things? Currently
Quick-Open-File
>> should be relatively easy to find (its in the File
menu) but
>> Quick-Open-Class/Method are in tools. I think some
other things
>> can be
>> moved out of tools as well (all those
code-formatting stuff for
>> example)
>
> Don't worry, the minutes say as if we don't have
solution at hands,
> but I already have one ;)
>
So what is it? Not funny to say "i have a
solution" but yet leave us
in the dark as to what the solution is.
>> Status Bar vs. Tab - where to display the
current file info?
>>
>> How about a toolbar? It needs to be rather short of
course, something
>> like insert-mod as an icon+INS text, row/col and
maybe the
>> lineending.
>> If we keep our toolbar small (i.e. few entries,
certainly no
>> navigator
>> like in kdev3) it shouldn't be a problem to have
this there.
> The problem here is that the toolbar is too far away
from the editor,
> especially if you have split views.
>
>> Or does that just mean that I should be able to
edit the
>> CMakeLists.txt
>> and the results show up in the simple gui? If thats
the case I'm
>> all for
>> it ;)
> Yes, basically we agreed that we should support Aleix's
work on
> parser.
>
>> So whenever somebody wants to add a feature which
uses an external
>> program or library, it would be nice of him to
check wether it is
>> supported under windows and if not see if he can
easily find a
>> replacement.
>
> And also we'd need to have a system with nightly builds
on linuxes,
> macos and windows to make sure we know that the build
is broken on
> some systems.
Somebody should set up a cmake dashboard for kdevelop
--
Matt
_______________________________________________
KDevelop-devel mailing list
KDevelop-devel kdevelop.org
https://barney.cs.uni-potsdam.de/mailman/listinf
o/kdevelop-devel
|
|
| Re: My notes to the BoF minutes |

|
2007-07-04 07:27:46 |
On 7/4/07, Matt Rogers <mattr kde.org> wrote:
> > Don't worry, the minutes say as if we don't have
solution at hands,
> > but I already have one ;)
> So what is it? Not funny to say "i have a
solution" but yet leave us
> in the dark as to what the solution is.
Argh
Wait a bit until I can at least have one hacking-only day
here
at aKademy ;)
_______________________________________________
KDevelop-devel mailing list
KDevelop-devel kdevelop.org
https://barney.cs.uni-potsdam.de/mailman/listinf
o/kdevelop-devel
|
|
| Re: My notes to the BoF minutes |
  Germany |
2007-07-04 07:35:27 |
Am Mittwoch, 4. Juli 2007 14:27:46 schrieb Alexander Dymo:
> On 7/4/07, Matt Rogers <mattr kde.org> wrote:
> > > Don't worry, the minutes say as if we don't
have solution at hands,
> > > but I already have one ;)
> >
> > So what is it? Not funny to say "i have a
solution" but yet leave us
> > in the dark as to what the solution is.
>
> Argh Wait a bit
until I can at least have one hacking-only day here
> at aKademy ;)
>
> _______________________________________________
> KDevelop-devel mailing list
> KDevelop-devel kdevelop.org
> https://barney.cs.uni-potsdam.de/mailman/listinf
o/kdevelop-devel
I've also got a keyword for the problem: Working-file-set
_______________________________________________
KDevelop-devel mailing list
KDevelop-devel kdevelop.org
https://barney.cs.uni-potsdam.de/mailman/listinf
o/kdevelop-devel
|
|
|
|