[Qt-creator] RubyCreator upstream or not upstream

[Hugo Parente Lima]

IMO there are two annoying things in developing QtC plugins:

* Be aware of tons of API changes.
* How to distribute the plugins.

As I said, some friends of mine uses MacOS and don't want to download 
GB of programs just to compile a small plugin... compile on Windows is 
also a hell, however at least I can do that on virtual machines.

The tons of API changes have a very positive side, usually this means 
the project is live and getting better, so IMO we shouldn't change 
this. Plugin distribution still a pain, however this is the case for 
almost all piece of software supporting multiple platforms.

--
Hugo

On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 6:37 AM, Typz <thetypz at gmail.com> wrote:
> And for every plugin that made it there are many which never were 
> integrated:  cppcheck, spelling, autoconf, to name a few...
> 
> I would not like a real marketplace: I would just like a way for devs 
> to "integrate" their (open source!!) plugins into the system with a 
> reduced barrier of entry, and for users to choose which extra plugins 
> to use.
> 
> --
> Feancois
> 
>>>  On 8 Apr 2017, at 10:44, Ch'Gans <chgans at gna.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>  On 8 April 2017 at 20:33, Typz <thetypz at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>  Hello,
>>> 
>>>  Unfortunately at the moment there is no infra structure (CI, 
>>> stable API...) to really support "external" plugin development.
>>> 
>>>  It is great however to see that you QtC guys are considering this 
>>> use case, can't wait to have a QtCreator Plugins "marketplace" :-)
>> 
>>  Are you kidding? Don't blindly follow trendy stuff!
>>  I don't want to have 3000 plugins to choose from a market place, 75%
>>  of them being useless, and 25% begging for money.
>>  If you have an interesting plugin, submit it to the QtC project.Like
>>  they did with the model editor, bare metal, todo, autotools,
>>  beautifier, clearcase, ...
>> 
>>  Chris
>> 
>>>  Hopefully we will get there eventually, but in the mean time the 
>>> best solution IMHO is to integrate in QtC source code; the review 
>>> process may take some time though, and you should be prepared for 
>>> some rework/cleanup.
>>> 
>>>  Best regards,
>>> 
>>>>  On 8 Apr 2017, at 10:12, Tobias Hunger <tobias.hunger at gmail.com> 
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>  Hi Hugo,
>>>> 
>>>>  I would personally like to see a ruby plugin: I like ruby and
>>>>  occasionally have to do small changes to ruby projects. Eike is 
>>>> the
>>>>  one to make that call though.
>>>> 
>>>>  This is not a decision of "in or out": We could also set up a
>>>>  repository on our infrastructure and add that into the public Qt
>>>>  Creator super repository (see here:
>>>>  
>>>> https://codereview.qt-project.org/gitweb?p=qt-creator/qtc-super.git;a=summary
>>>>  ).
>>>> 
>>>>  Your plugin gets a bit more visibility that way and will be part 
>>>> of
>>>>  the build of more developers. That already helps with the "we 
>>>> break
>>>>  stuff all the time and do not even notice" problem:-)
>>>> 
>>>>  Ideally we would even build the plugins (provided they do build 
>>>> at the
>>>>  time) to avoid the hassle of creating plugins that are compatible 
>>>> with
>>>>  our Qt Creator binaries. We have plans for that, but as far as I
>>>>  understand the problem we will need to get Qt Creator into the Qt 
>>>> CI
>>>>  first. So this is not happening anytime soon.
>>>> 
>>>>  Best Regards,
>>>>  Tobias
>>>> 
>>>>>  On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 1:44 AM, Hugo Parente Lima 
>>>>> <hugo.pl at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>  Hi QtC devs.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  I'm a C++ developer that 3 years ago started a job with 
>>>>> Ruby/Web, so to not
>>>>>  loss my C++ skills and to continue to use the IDE I love I 
>>>>> started
>>>>>  RubyCreator, a plugin to QtC that add support to Ruby on QtC.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  I use it on my daily work since then and add features when I 
>>>>> have time and
>>>>>  motivation to do so, Orgad Shaneh help me with patches adapting 
>>>>> my plugin to
>>>>>  the frequent QtC API changes (since I usually only catch these 
>>>>> changes when
>>>>>  ArchLinux updates QtC), so he also gave me the suggestion to try 
>>>>> to push my
>>>>>  plugin upstream, this would:
>>>>> 
>>>>>  - Reduce the headaches of adapt my code to the frequent QtC API 
>>>>> changes.
>>>>>  - Solve the problem of windows/mac compilation/distribution.
>>>>>  - Have more users :-), some friends of mine use mac and refuse 
>>>>> to waste time
>>>>>  compiling things.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  Ok, so I ask you guys if the QtC devs have some interest in 
>>>>> accept this
>>>>>  plugin upstream, if so, some things need to be adjusted 
>>>>> beforehand.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  - Convert file naming code style to QtC one.
>>>>>  - Convert general code style to QtC one (I think it's already 
>>>>> done).
>>>>>  - Review all the code before let it merged (of course), since I 
>>>>> probably
>>>>>  missused some QtC API.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  If there is not interest, I'm fine too, and I'll just keep the 
>>>>> development
>>>>>  as it is now.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  Here is more info about the plugin:
>>>>> 
>>>>>  Outdated webpage: http://hugopl.github.io/RubyCreator/
>>>>>  Github project: https://github.com/hugopl/RubyCreator
>>>>> 
>>>>>  Thanks
>>>>>  --
>>>>>  Hugo
>>>>> 
>>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>>>  Qt-creator mailing list
>>>>>  Qt-creator at qt-project.org
>>>>>  http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/qt-creator
>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>>  Qt-creator mailing list
>>>>  Qt-creator at qt-project.org
>>>>  http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/qt-creator
>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>  Qt-creator mailing list
>>>  Qt-creator at qt-project.org
>>>  http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/qt-creator
> _______________________________________________
> Qt-creator mailing list
> Qt-creator at qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/qt-creator