Statuses

Next Bluefish version, 2.0.4 or 2.2.0 ?

In Bluefish, open source, Programming on October 1, 2011 by oli4444

I’m wondering which version number we should give to the next Bluefish release. Are the changes just minor, so should we use 2.0.4, or are the changes big enough to justify a 2.2.0 version number?

On the surface the changes are not very dramatic. Several new features, such as “select block” (<shift><ctrl><b>) which will select the syntax block that the cursor is in (use multiple times to get one of the the parent blocks), the block stack is displayed on the statusbar (for example “{ { /*” if you are in a comment that is in a loop in a function), and a completely rewritten search and replace engine. It can now search (and replace) recursively trough files, do both backward and forward searches, and gives more options for the regular expression searches. The quickbar feature has been removed because it turned out to be difficult to port to gtkuimanager. Perhaps it will be added again if there is a lot of demand for that.

However, under the hood there are massive changes. All of the menu and toolbar code and their calbacks have been rewritten to use GtkUIManager. The code now compiles with gtk+-3. The syntax highlighting engine has been changed a lot. The internal syntax caching structures have been rewitten, and all the code that handles that. Almost 30 commit on bftextview2_scanner.c for example, a 30k diff on a 60k file.

So from a developer point of view, 2.2.0 is justified. But from a user point of view, this should be just 2.0.4.

Advertisements

9 Responses to “Next Bluefish version, 2.0.4 or 2.2.0 ?”

  1. It’s a major revision in the software, so I see no good reason why the version number shouldn’t jump to 2.2!

  2. “So from a developer point of view, 2.2.0 is justified.” => go tiger 😉

  3. This seems like the kind of problem you hit with 3-component version numbers. How about calling the next version ‘3’, since it works with GTK+ 3, and then moving on to 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and so on?

  4. In my opinion a minor number is a bug fixing and improvements but on the same code base. New version you have is a mayor refactoring on code base, then must be a 2.2.

  5. +1 on 3 version

  6. IMHO version numbers should primary follow risk not features. x.y.(z+1) is most often defined as “just” bugfixes => should be “totally” safe to upgrade. So from your description I think 2.2.0 is the better number.

  7. 2.2 please :). After that do some major work and then call it 3 😀

  8. Regarding syntax highlighting: BF 2.2 seems to have removed the ability to customize your own language file… I know that there appears to be a facility to do just that, but the UI has been removed and now I’m poking around in various config files, to no avail. It would appear that the file with the actual colour codes are nowhere to be found, unless you must resort to customizing the .gtkrc-2.0.

    The ~/.bluefish/highlighting file doesn’t seem to override syntax highlighting
    The .bflang files in /usr/share/bluefish/bflang seem to be full of pointers, but no colour values specified.

    Is .gtkrc-2.0 the final place which contains the colour codes ?

    What I’m trying to do: I like to dial down comments to a very light shade of grey so that they are not very noticeable in your code.

    • the language file point to a textstyle name – and in the preferences panel you can change the colors and styles for every textstyle.

      If you want to change more than the colors you can copy the language files into ~/.bluefish/ and edit them there –> these will override the system wide installed language files.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: