[GSoC] GObjectification Summary
mark at kingant.net
Sat Dec 7 14:21:09 EST 2013
(resending to all this time. sorry for the duplicate email, Ankit)
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Ankit Vani <a at nevitus.org> wrote:
> Please let me know if we would need to be able to change the presence object of
> a buddy.
I think it's good as-is. Thanks.
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Mark Doliner <mark at kingant.net> wrote:
>> I haven't heard any objections, so let's merge this to main!
>> Ankit: Do you have any interest yourself in doing it? Or would you
>> rather someone else do it? I just gave you commit access to
>> /pidgin/**, so if you want to do the merge then by all means go for
> Yay! Yes, I would love to do it myself :p
> Will do it as soon as I send this mail.
So exciting! Thank you.
> After the merge, how do I go about further soc.2013.gobjectification changes?
> Do I make them directly on the default branch, or do I continue working on
> soc.2013.gobjectification? If directly on default, then should I close the
> soc.2013.gobjectification branch?
For non-controversial changes I'd say to make them directly on the
default branch. It's less work for you and probably easier for the
rest of us to follow along and see what's happening.
For large or controversial changes it might work better to use a
separate branch, so you can make multiple commits without worrying
about breaking things for other people and so you can optionally get
feedback from other devs before merging changes into default.
> By the way, most of the GPlugin issues with the
> soc.2013.gobjectification.plugins branch have been resolved, but not all. As for
> the pidgin side of things, we will be needing a huge documentation change
> (change from doxygen to gtk-doc). Everything is already set up, only changing
> the format of the actual comments is left. This, as I had mentioned before, I
> will do in the end when everything is functionally ready so that merges from
> default aren't a pain.
Let's talk about this! (Right here in this email thread!)
I haven't looked at your .plugins branch yet. Have other people?
Probably Gary and Ethan? In reality I think it will probably be at
least a month before we collectively decide to merge it. I know it's a
burden for you to keep it up to date with the changes in default. I'm
under the impression that the changes in .plugins are less extensive
than for soc.2013.gobjectification. Hopefully that makes maintenance
it a little easier?
Regarding gtk-doc vs. doxygen, I'm in favor of switching. It seems
like gtk-doc has become the de facto standard for glib, gtk, gnome
libraries. And as a developer I prefer the formatting/appearance of
gtk-doc rather than doxygen. Personally I'd like to see us switch to
gtk-doc regardless of your .plugins branch. Anyone object to this?
Regarding the actual changes, it looks like you've done some work in
your .plugins branch, but you're saying that every doc-style comment
on all our functions and structs will need to change to use gtk-doc
style? That change seems pretty straightforward... maybe we should
make that change directly in the default branch and go ahead and check
it in now? That way the .plugins branch contains only changes related
to the plugin API.
More information about the Devel