[MonoDevelop] Version Control UI
marecki.krzysztof at gmail.com
Tue Aug 17 06:04:00 EDT 2010
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 7:28 PM, Michael Hutchinson
<m.j.hutchinson at gmail.com> wrote:
> For consistency with aspx and xaml I would expect:
I was prototyping that grouping too, but i felt that having cs file as a parent
would be better. My reasons were :
- similarity to WindowsForms designer in VS which have
- unlike aspx and xaml, gtkx files are not supposed to be edited directly
(although I've done some work to make editing more convenient , now
it uses XmlEditor for display)
- aesthetics issues, mixing on the same folder level ordinary cs files with
gtkx ones looks not nice for me :)
- usability, editing source file happens more often than working in
if gtkx file would be a root, easy navigate to main source file is a must.
I don't see how we can rid of this combined (designer/source) view, especially
that people are accustomed to that.
> I must admit I don't like the "combined" view because it makes
> save/dirty/undo/outline/diff/blame etc. behave a little strangely...
> IMO it makes a lot more sense for subviews to be views of the same
> single physical file.
Me either, especially after fighting with IsDirty flag to indicate changes for
split files :) But if we would stick to separate views : source for
cs, and designer/xml
for gtkx, navigating between those will not be as straightforward as it is now.
But i'm open to discussion it will not be so hard to change grouping.
>Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Mike Krüger <mkrueger at novell.com>
>Ok, that's how I thought - how is the view combined ? Atm the implementor of stetic didn't know about the 'attached' subviews. The >IViewContents can have attached contents - a designer would be an attachment to a text editor for example.
>Unfortunately the stetic author didn't use it - the funny thing is that this was implemented because of designers :)
It makes sense to integrate stetic source/designer buttons with bottom
pad (having multiple separate contents instead
aggregated one would further cleanup code). My only concern is that we
will have at least six tab pages : source (the same as a abstract
content?)/designer/groups/diff/blame/log. Would not be a bit clunky ?
More information about the Monodevelop-list