Olivier Sessink | 1 Aug 11:10 2010
Picon

Re: merging G_SEAL and GTK_SEAL fixed code back to trunk ?

On 07/31/2010 03:24 PM, Jim Hayward wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-07-30 at 16:27 +0200, Olivier Sessink wrote:
>>   So I would like to propose to merge everything to the trunk
>> before we start removing deprecated gtk functions. Opinions about that?
>
> Merging the changes back to trunk would bump the required versions to
> GTK>= 2.18 GLIB>= 2.20. Is this something you wish to do now?

hmm I wasn't aware of that.

which of the changes require GTK>= 2.18 or GLIB>= 2.20 ?

Olivier
Olivier Sessink | 1 Aug 15:32 2010
Picon

help with the name of a new 'jump' feature

Hi all,

I added a new feature to SVN today, if your mouse is over a filename and 
you press <control>j it will jump to that file (and open it if necessary).

I plan to enhance the feature for code like PHP, where you can for 
example jump to a function declaration.

I currently called the feature "Jump to reference". But I don't really 
like the name yet. Any ideas?

Olivier

--

-- 
Bluefish website http://bluefish.openoffice.nl/
Blog http://oli4444.wordpress.com/
Jim Hayward | 1 Aug 15:35 2010
Picon

Re: merging G_SEAL and GTK_SEAL fixed code back to trunk ?

On Sun, 2010-08-01 at 11:10 +0200, Olivier Sessink wrote:
> 
> which of the changes require GTK>= 2.18 or GLIB>= 2.20 ?

Most of the gtk_widget_get/set_* functions that effect GtkWidget flags
were introduced in GTK 2.18.

Regards,
	Jim H

Jim Hayward | 1 Aug 15:39 2010
Picon

Re: file naming conventions (for GtkUIManager and more)

On Tue, 2010-07-27 at 08:50 +0200, Olivier Sessink wrote:
> On 07/27/2010 06:30 AM, Jim Hayward wrote:
> 
> > Although, might consider using bluefish instead of just bf to more
> > closely follow GTK's naming conventions.
> 
> hm, but it makes function names quite long.. (and gtk also doesn't use
> gimptoolkit_bla() ;-)

Public functions would be candidates for a bluefish* prefix. Especially
if a better plugin API was developed. I don't see a need for static
functions to have the prefix.

Regards,
	Jim H

Takeshi Hamasaki | 1 Aug 19:09 2010
Picon

Re: moving to GPLv3 ?

Now the matters got clearer, I have no objection to transition.

2010/7/31 Jim Hayward <jimhayward@...>:
> No, it would be "version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later
> version."

I see.

> It would require all code to be GPL3.

It means contributors of old code also must agree the transition.
I would notice about the transition to previous contributors for
Japanese translation.
According to the head block of ja.po file 3 contriutors were there before me.
Though I don't know their mail addresses are valid or not now, I should give
a try if necessary...

> Correct. However, if someone wanted to fork Bluefish into a new project
> but wanted to use GPL2 they could actually still do that by only using
> the code that was published before the license change to GPL3.

Yes, I see, you are right.
--

-- 
Takeshi Hamasaki
Olivier Sessink | 1 Aug 20:10 2010
Picon

Re: moving to GPLv3 ?

On 08/01/2010 07:09 PM, Takeshi Hamasaki wrote:

> It means contributors of old code also must agree the transition.

they already did, because the current licence has "GPL 2 or later", so 
they already agreed that GPL 3, or 4 or 5 is allowed.

so basically everybody (even somebody outside the bluefish community) 
already has the rights to copy all of bluefish sourcecode and release it 
as GPL3 if they wish.

Olivier

--

-- 
Bluefish website http://bluefish.openoffice.nl/
Blog http://oli4444.wordpress.com/
Wayne Sallee | 1 Aug 20:10 2010

Re: help with the name of a new 'jump' feature

That will be a nice feature.

Since it has to do with linking to another page (so to speak), a name 
that follows that line of though would probably be good.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne@...

Olivier Sessink wrote on 08/01/2010 09:32 AM:
> Hi all,
>
> I added a new feature to SVN today, if your mouse is over a filename 
> and you press <control>j it will jump to that file (and open it if 
> necessary).
>
> I plan to enhance the feature for code like PHP, where you can for 
> example jump to a function declaration.
>
> I currently called the feature "Jump to reference". But I don't really 
> like the name yet. Any ideas?
>
> Olivier
>
Takeshi Hamasaki | 1 Aug 20:52 2010
Picon

Re: moving to GPLv3 ?

2010/8/2 Olivier Sessink <olivier@...>:
> On 08/01/2010 07:09 PM, Takeshi Hamasaki wrote:
>
>> It means contributors of old code also must agree the transition.
>
> they already did, because the current licence has "GPL 2 or later", so they
> already agreed that GPL 3, or 4 or 5 is allowed.

No.
Though I don't see any objection this time sometimes things is not so simple.
If I write now "GPLv2 and later" it only means GPL 2.x and GPL3 only, because
I can't decide GPL4 is acceptable or not.
How can you decide you can agree or not when you don't know next version
of GPL does not exist in any place of this world?
It is still possible one of future releases of GPL is not acceptable for me.
E.g, GPLv3 and GPLv2 is not compatible. That is why Linux kernel developers
don't transit to GPLv3.

So I think THIS process (Oliver questioned "Is it OK?") is necessary even
"GPL 2 or later" is clearly stated.
--

-- 
Takeshi Hamasaki
Wayne Sallee | 1 Aug 21:17 2010

Re: moving to GPLv3 ?

I feel the same way. I don't have any real objections to moving to 
GPLv3. It might be a good thing to do, but I have now way of knowing if 
it would be good or not because it muddies the water so much.

If someone releases code under GPLv1, and someone takes that code, and 
moves it to GPLv2, and makes improvements to it, then arn't they 
required under the GPlv1 license to supply the source code so that it 
can be used and improved on more, such that it would still be under the 
GPLv1 license.  So someone takes the GPLv2 code and moves it to GPLv3, 
but that code that gets improved, isn't in now still under the GPLv2 and 
GpLv1 license?

It's all a big bowl of legal soup. But maybe the thickness of that legal 
soup will have an advantage some day in the future. One good thing about 
it though, is that it won't harm the common user.

Wayne Sallee
Wayne@...
Olivier Sessink | 1 Aug 21:18 2010
Picon

Re: moving to GPLv3 ?

On 08/01/2010 08:52 PM, Takeshi Hamasaki wrote:
> 2010/8/2 Olivier Sessink<olivier@...>:
>> On 08/01/2010 07:09 PM, Takeshi Hamasaki wrote:
>>
>>> It means contributors of old code also must agree the transition.
>>
>> they already did, because the current licence has "GPL 2 or later", so they
>> already agreed that GPL 3, or 4 or 5 is allowed.
>
> No.
> Though I don't see any objection this time sometimes things is not so simple.
> If I write now "GPLv2 and later" it only means GPL 2.x and GPL3 only, because
> I can't decide GPL4 is acceptable or not.
 > How can you decide you can agree or not when you don't know next
 > version of GPL does not exist in any place of this world?

well, then we should have used "GPL 2", because we used "GPL 2 or later" 
at the time when the GPL 3 did not exist yet.

if we did not trust the free software foundation we should not have used 
"GPL 2 or later", if you don't trust them we should have used "GPL 2 only".

> It is still possible one of future releases of GPL is not acceptable for me.
> E.g, GPLv3 and GPLv2 is not compatible. That is why Linux kernel developers
> don't transit to GPLv3.
>
> So I think THIS process (Oliver questioned "Is it OK?") is necessary even
> "GPL 2 or later" is clearly stated.

We should have has this discussion when we chose "GPL 2 or later" ;-)
(Continue reading)


Gmane