[MonoDevelop] Version Control UI

IBBoard ibboard at gmail.com
Tue Aug 17 14:22:21 EDT 2010

On 17/08/10 19:01, Mike Krüger wrote:
> IMHO you did the right thing - gtkx files are monodevelop only - it 
> doesn't make a reason to build the project this way (try to think what 
> happens when the project is opened in vs.net or #develop).
> I think the designer/source view is good for the gtk# designer. All IDEs 
> (expect VS.NET - maybe a technical limitation in their IDE?) do a split 
> system for forms.
> Changing that needs a very good reason - because the VS.NET way has 
> usability issues as well.

It used to keep it all in one file, but I don't think it does anymore
since they introduced partial classes in .Net 2.0. I've only got VS
Express 2003, but I've got some files that have a separate
"ClassName.Designer.cs" file. That said, all it really does is move the
InitialiseComponents() method to another file from what I can tell!
Looking around it looks like only 2005 and onwards supports it, so maybe
the files I have are ones that other contributors edited.

>> 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 ?
> We have that right now as well >but< with one important issue: the 
> stetic designer implements it's own subview system. I'll move the 
> diff/blame/log thing to the right when it's too clunky - that should 
> solve the issue.

Standard code already has four tabs, and Steic has four plus three
nested "tabs", so I don't see it being any worse. Separating the VCS
from the editing (either with spacing or alignment) would work quite
nicely if it become a problem.



More information about the Monodevelop-list mailing list