Emerald Editor Discussion
April 23, 2017, 04:45:46 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 9
  Print  
Author Topic: CE Development Binaries Discussion  (Read 77170 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Arantor
Site Administrator
Administrator
Master Jeweller
*****
Posts: 618



« Reply #15 on: June 26, 2007, 07:36:48 pm »

On the download issue
Do we want nightly SVN tarballs generated? If so, I'll throw a script together to do it.

I only set 4MB as a general limit to prevent the filespace being absolutely thrashed. I can see I may have to rethink this...

On the license issue
The license he's using is basically a variant of the BSD license. If we were to relicense CE under BSD license, there shouldn't be a problem.

On Sourceforge
I originally set up SVN services here as opposed to Sourceforge because I've had trouble accessing SF before, and because I wanted to keep as much as possible in-house and avoid depending on any third party (I know I don't own this server, but I have more comeback on my host because I pay for the service in the event of a dispute)

That said, a project does exist on SF for CE, and currently hosts a mirror of installers to date.

If people wanted to, we could transfer to SVN there and rely on SF's servers instead of mine. In that respect, it would reduce some of the server load and maintenance since SVN is something of a pain to administer, though it would mean recreating rights/access.

What do people want to do? Whatever happens, I'll still host release builds here, as well as SF.
Logged

"Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult!"
rageboy
Jeweller
*****
Posts: 305

Ankit Singla


« Reply #16 on: June 26, 2007, 07:40:58 pm »

The reason I mentioned SF was because I knew the page existed but wasn't being used for anything. I thought was EE but anyway. I think we should use this site for most of the stuff, but if we do nightlies, we don't want to thrash this site, especially if we're keeping any sort of history. That would be what SF would be good for.
Logged
Phil
Administrator
Master Jeweller
*****
Posts: 427


« Reply #17 on: June 27, 2007, 11:41:19 pm »

On the license issue
The license he's using is basically a variant of the BSD license. If we were to relicense CE under BSD license, there shouldn't be a problem.

I looked into this and it is actually is taken from the zlib/libpng license. It just has two clauses removed which actually make the license even more liberal.

The zlib license has these two extra sentences:
Quote
If you use this software in a product, an acknowledgment in the product documentation would be
appreciated but is not required.

2. Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be
misrepresented as being the original software.

So I suggest we do not change CE's license, but we just refer to it as a modified zlib/libpng license. I think modifying the license would violate CE license point 2 (which is point 3 on the zlib license).

Here is a link to the zlib license. http://www.opensource.org/licenses/zlib-license.php

If the community really wants an OSI-approved license, I'll put a message on OSI's mailing list to see what we can do.

Phil
Logged
jsjslim
Prospector
*
Posts: 1


« Reply #18 on: July 01, 2007, 03:35:42 pm »

Thanks for Crimson Editor!!

However, just something that I've noticed, the binaries of the latest build is noticibly slower than v3.70. Accessing/OK'ing/Applying the User Preferences dialog takes longer (during which the entire application is unresponsive). This was with a Celeron 1.7Ghz, 512MB RAM machine. On an AMD Duron 256MB RAM, this lag is even longer (up to ~2 seconds).

Logged
Raf
Miner
**
Posts: 12


« Reply #19 on: July 02, 2007, 02:56:59 pm »

This is great, some real improvements. I particularly like the UTF-8 w/o BOM support improvement. I'm a web developer and I for me the single biggest drawback in CE is the lack of real UTF-8 support, and a lot of other developers I know feel the same way. So I think it's great that you are keeping up the development of Crimson Editor while EE gets on its feet.

I feel foolish asking this, but when you say "Development Binaries", what files are you referring to? I had a look in the svn repository and I can't find any executables or any MSIs or NSIS-based installers. I have no experience in SVN use or software development like this so please excuse the stupid question!
Logged
rageboy
Jeweller
*****
Posts: 305

Ankit Singla


« Reply #20 on: July 02, 2007, 03:13:54 pm »

development binaries? Are you referring to the builds attached to the first/second posts?
Logged
Pvt_Ryan
Master Jeweller
******
Posts: 422



WWW
« Reply #21 on: July 02, 2007, 03:27:55 pm »

Thanks for Crimson Editor!!

However, just something that I've noticed, the binaries of the latest build is noticibly slower than v3.70. Accessing/OK'ing/Applying the User Preferences dialog takes longer (during which the entire application is unresponsive). This was with a Celeron 1.7Ghz, 512MB RAM machine. On an AMD Duron 256MB RAM, this lag is even longer (up to ~2 seconds).

This could be due to the settings now being stored in a txt file instead of being stored in a binary file..

in saying this I am developing on
AMD 64 x2 4600+
2Gb Ram

so its likely thats why i just havent noticed any delays..
Logged
mphafner
Miner
**
Posts: 11


« Reply #22 on: July 03, 2007, 03:10:56 pm »

The new dev. version takes a long long time to start ~10 sec instead of v3.70 which takes ~2 sec. Closing the program now takes a while too.
This really doesn't have anything to do with my computer speed (2GB ram with pentium D@3.4ghz), there's a bug somewhere. The first time i started up the new version there was an error message that I didn't write down(about a project file maybe? anyways it wasn't the 3.70 config error) but uninstalling and reinstalling doesn't won't reproduce the error. Oh yeah  and the uninstaller doesn't remove cedt.exe for some reason.
I'm running the copy at cedt-168-setup.exe
Logged
Pvt_Ryan
Master Jeweller
******
Posts: 422



WWW
« Reply #23 on: July 03, 2007, 04:09:07 pm »

@ mphafner

Can you please register/login to the bug tracker and each problem as a seperate bug, I'd say put the slow startup/closing as a trival severity and the project as normal..

I think the slowness is caused by the fact that the settings are now in an ini file instead of a binary file..

@ Phil is there any chance you could mash together a patch/version that uses a binary file for options instead of the ini? so we can see if that is what is causing the slowdown..

I have noticed the slowness but its ~4sec starting and ~2sec closing
Logged
rageboy
Jeweller
*****
Posts: 305

Ankit Singla


« Reply #24 on: July 03, 2007, 05:35:08 pm »

I totally don't see this behavior at all. Not a new 169 install anyway. I'll probably end up seeing the same thing I complained about earlier in a few days, but that's not a result of recent code changes. That's been around since before 150, and even 130 I think.
Logged
Phil
Administrator
Master Jeweller
*****
Posts: 427


« Reply #25 on: July 03, 2007, 08:13:08 pm »

I can experiment with a settings format that makes everything like the old .cfg file. That would likely speed things up a lot. And I think with some changes we can make it work in a forwards-compatible way.

As for the message, that is a "Wrong project file" message. I think I recently introduced that bug. I'll try to fix it soon. It should be a trivial fix.

I'll look into the uninstaller problem. Thanks for reporting it.

Phil
Logged
corelon
Miner
**
Posts: 10


« Reply #26 on: July 04, 2007, 03:30:39 pm »

In addition to the above post, I would like to post the following bugs:
1. When I customize the syntax menu and close the editor the changes are NOT kept
2. In the filters dialog initially there are three "All files (*.*)" choices. (I am not sure this is a bug, but still there is no reason of having the same thing three times)

Regards,

Nick
Logged
Pvt_Ryan
Master Jeweller
******
Posts: 422



WWW
« Reply #27 on: July 04, 2007, 04:08:47 pm »

I had noticed that in the filters but hadnt got round to investigating it..

I suspect that the Syntax problem is the same as the FTP Settings problem.

Would you be willing to go through all the list boxes under preferences and check for any others that display this behaviour?
« Last Edit: July 04, 2007, 04:13:01 pm by Pvt_Ryan » Logged
Raf
Miner
**
Posts: 12


« Reply #28 on: July 04, 2007, 06:39:14 pm »

development binaries? Are you referring to the builds attached to the first/second posts?

Yeah, sorry. I thought they were in SVN too.

Quote
Revisions 125 - 126:

    * More version separation so multiple versions do not use the same settings.
    * Better UTF-8 w/o BOM support.
Regarding this version posted, I've tested it and I see no change in UTF-8 support. Exactly what improvement has been made in this matter? Cheers,

Raf
Logged
rageboy
Jeweller
*****
Posts: 305

Ankit Singla


« Reply #29 on: July 04, 2007, 06:49:21 pm »

Regarding this version posted, I've tested it and I see no change in UTF-8 support. Exactly what improvement has been made in this matter? Cheers,

Raf

The patch that was applied is in the bug tracker (closed). If you have any sort of coding experience, it probably makes more sense to look at that than to have me try to (unsuccessfully) explain it Wink
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 9
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.133 seconds with 18 queries.