Sublime Forum

Package Control 2.0

#11

Love the new website. Suggestions:

  1. Have the Search box visible always as part of the top menu. Also, the search box being of font-size 2.5em is too large making it disorienting to the site layout and organization. The search box is supposed to be a sub element - that means it is supposed to be smaller than the main Site Title - but instead its current size of 2.5em puts it on par with the main Site Title. The size of the search-box should be the same as that of the titles of the search results that it gives which is font-size 1.4em (h3).

  2. The section heading is unnecessary and sometimes confusing since it is sometimes confused for a menu navigation item on the page. Perhaps remove it since it is already known which section it is from the highlight. Otherwise if you are going to keep the section heading, then there should be a line separator below it so that it is understood that it is not part of the page content but part of the top menu navigational template / breadcrumb area.
    http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/8899/s4ts.gif
    http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/9250/l8hj.gif

0 Likes

#12

WOW! wbond, Amazing, I was not expecting that much! thanks a lot! :smile:

0 Likes

#13

That’s another beautiful piece of work from Mr. Bond. I’ve added to the appreciation for this important contribution to the Sublime ecosystem:

sublime.wbond.net/say_thanks

0 Likes

#14

Thank you !
I just made a donation.

0 Likes

#15

My package uses a manual packages.json file to specify Windows-only compatability. However I am concerned that now defining packages.json schema 2.0 there will break backwards compatability. If I now use schema 2.0 for packages.json - what will happen to the users who are still using the old version of the package control plugin?

Is it possible to specify both the schema 1.2 and schema 2.0 in packages.json - so that it will work for both old and new users of the package control plugin?

0 Likes

#16

well done,thank you!

0 Likes

#17

Grats

0 Likes

#18

What is the suggested course of action to upgrade ST3 from the existing Package Control to this?
Just delete the package control folder then go through the installation on the site?

0 Likes

#19

[quote=“Saxi”]What is the suggested course of action to upgrade ST3 from the existing Package Control to this?
Just delete the package control folder then go through the installation on the site?[/quote]

Just do Package Control: Upgrade Package, then select “Package Control” as the package to be upgraded. It’s so easy it hardly seems possible.

0 Likes

#20

[quote=“Stubblechunks”]

[quote=“Saxi”]What is the suggested course of action to upgrade ST3 from the existing Package Control to this?
Just delete the package control folder then go through the installation on the site?[/quote]

Just do Package Control: Upgrade Package, then select “Package Control” as the package to be upgraded. It’s so easy it hardly seems possible.[/quote]

That doesn’t work if you were using an alpha version :frowning: Whenever I check for updates it says I’m using alpha 6 and if I check again after upgrading it says the same thing. Installing with the code from the site doesn’t work. I might need to delete the folder and go through the installation.

0 Likes

#21

That’s totally weird. I was using Alpha 6, and it upgraded just fine.

– I take it back. I thought it upgraded, but in fact it failed silently. My apologies for the bum steer.

0 Likes

#22

Awesome work. Thanks for taking the time to do this project. Just made a small donation.

Keep it up.

0 Likes

#23

Even after I DID successfully upgrade to 2.0, I was seeing Alpha 6 when I listed packages until I went in and manually removed the old Package Control folder that was installed under Packages/. The new one had installed successfully at Installed Packages/, but was being ignored.

0 Likes

#24

That worked, thanks! It seems like it’s also good to go through and clear up Packages/ for packages installed through Package Control since those are in Installed Packages/ now and can show up twice in Preferences - Package Settings.

0 Likes

#25

After messing around with Package Control for about half an hour I was able to get it installed and updated.

I had to keep deleting the .sublime-package file in Installed Packages. It kept being restored, so that was weird.

Now it’s installed I’ve noticed a few packages are missing. What makes a package not show?

0 Likes

#26

Yes, unfortunately the git upgrader withe 2.0.0-alpha6 was broken, so it won’t update itself properly. You’ll need to delete the Packages/Package Control/ folder and then follow the instructions on sublime.wbond.net/installation to get it to go through properly. I guess it lived up to its name of being an alpha. :smile:

In the new version of Package Control, only packages that are listed as compatible with your version of Sublime Text will show. Thus there are quite a number of ST2 only packages that won’t show up in ST3. There are also a few ST3-only packages. sublime.wbond.net/stats has the details.

0 Likes

#27

How’s it working out compatability? Is it looking for certain text in a README?

0 Likes

#28

No, you have to set the sublime_text value in the releases key of the repository JSON.

0 Likes

#29

So Package Control is taking a ‘hands off’ approach to any packages that I installed with the alpha version that are not currently listed as ST3 compatible? (I mean, it won’t do anything to disable them, and won’t list any updates until the package maintainer updates it to reflect that it’s ST3 compatible…)

Thanks, Mr. Bond. Package Control is good. It’s a little like putting a nitrous boost on a Ferrari.

0 Likes

#30

Yeah, I suppose it is. I didn’t spend too much time figuring out a transition plan for alpha -> stable, I guess partially since I listed it as alpha.

However, if you have found certain packages work in ST3 that are not marked as such, please do everyone a favor and update the channel on the author’s behalf.

0 Likes