On 21 March 2011 06:26, Piotr Piastucki <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 3:57 AM, Kai <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> While I'm not certain, this isn't how I've previously envisaged a >> patch mode, and existing bugs have also put forward a different view. >> Most of the discussion I've seen around 'patch mode' has been based on >> the idea of: >> source tree + patch = version-control view >> or directory instead of version-control or similar. See for instance: >> https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=517902 >> https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=572565 >> >> Your take is different, in that it's purely a mode for viewing a patch >> file, without a source directory as context. I have to admit that I've >> never wanted to do this, so I don't really see the benefit, but... >> maybe people would find it useful? >> >> I'm also worried because Meld already has three very different view >> modes, and this is a fourth mode, adding to our already-fragmented UI. >> The benefit to the other patch-view approaches is that they're just >> different ways to get at our existing UI. > > Yes, your points are valid. > Working with source directory is on my todo list. The patch provides quick > preview mode similar to what Kompare offers. Personally, I use it quite > often and this is actually the only case when I have to use Kompare instead > of Meld. However, the user should be able to select the source directory in > some way (dialog/relative to patch location etc.) and if the source > directory is not selected or the patch cannot be applied quick preview will > be used as a fallback.
I like the idea much better thinking about it as 'real patch mode' (i.e., the existing bug requests) with a 'fallback patch mode for when you don't have source' (i.e., your current patch). This sounds like a reasonably cohesive concept, though I'm still concerned about the issues with adding yet-another-UI-mode. > What are the benefits? > 1) I can associate Meld with .patch files and preview their content in a > more pleasant way than just opening them in gedit no matter if I have the > source directory on my machine or not Fair enough. > 2) I have to deal with old patches that cannot be applied without > modifications due to code base changes. However, the functionality provided > by the patches is still valid and I need to check what parts of the code can > be used. Also seems reasonable. Again, the comparison is with opening the patch in gedit... > I fully agree that the number of users of such a functionality may be > limited and it may not be beneficial to include it in Meld. ...but it also might. :) I'd agree that your approach is definitely better than opening a patch in gedit, but I don't know that it's *massively* better. I'd like to see if we could come up with concrete examples of ways in which we can make your cases above compellingly better than just using a text editor. cheers, Kai _______________________________________________ meld-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/meld-list
