obs-studio/.gitignore

111 lines
1.0 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Permalink Normal View History

#binaries
2013-09-30 19:37:13 -07:00
*.exe
*.dll
2013-11-14 08:26:06 -08:00
*.dylib
*.so
#cmake
/cmbuild/
/build/
/build32/
/build64/
/release/
/release32/
/release64/
/debug/
/debug32/
/debug64/
/builds/
.vs/
*.o.d
*.ninja
.ninja*
.dirstamp
/cmake/.CMakeBuildNumber
#xcode
*.xcodeproj/
/xcodebuild/
2017-12-03 10:56:25 -08:00
#clion
.idea/
cmake-build-debug/
2017-12-03 10:56:25 -08:00
#other stuff (windows stuff, qt moc stuff, etc)
2013-09-30 19:37:13 -07:00
Release_MD/
Release/
Debug/
x64/
ipch/
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
GeneratedFiles/
.moc/
/UI/obs.rc
.vscode/
/CI/include/*.lock.json
install_temp/
/other/
2013-12-30 12:04:01 -08:00
#make stuff
configure
depcomp
install-sh
Makefile.in
Makefile
#python
__pycache__
2017-10-25 10:52:58 -07:00
#sphinx
/docs/sphinx/_build/*
!/docs/sphinx/_build/.gitignore
!/docs/sphinx/Makefile
#random useless file stuff
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
*.dmg
*.app
2014-06-28 18:51:38 -07:00
.directory
.hg
2013-10-17 17:21:42 -07:00
.depend
2013-09-30 19:37:13 -07:00
tags
*.trace
*.vsp
*.psess
2013-09-30 19:37:13 -07:00
*.swp
*.dat
*.clbin
*.log
*.tlog
*.sdf
*.opensdf
*.xml
*.ipch
*.css
*.xslt
*.aps
*.suo
*.ncb
*.user
*.lo
Change the UI to Qt (work in progress) -------------------------------------------------- Notes and details -------------------------------------------------- Why was this done? Because wxWidgets was just lacking in many areas. I know wxWidgets is designed to be used with native controls, and that's great, but wxWidgets just is not a feature-complete toolkit for multiplatform applications. It lacks in dialog editors, its code is archaic and outdated, and I just feel frustrated every time I try to do things with it. Qt on the other hand.. I had to actually try Qt to realize how much better it was as a toolkit. They've got everything from dialog editors, to an IDE, a debugger, build tools, just everything, and it's all top-notch and highly maintained. The focus of the toolkit is application development, and they spend their time trying to help people do exactly that: make programs. Great support, great tools, and because of that, great toolkit. I just didn't want to alienate any developers by being stubborn about native widgets. There *are* some things that are rather lackluster about it and design choices I disagree with though. For example, I realize that to have an easy to use toolkit you have to have some level of code generation. However, in my personal and humble opinion, moc just feels like a terrible way to approach the problem. Even now I feel like there are a variety of ways you could handle code generation and automatic management of things like that. I don't like the idea of circumventing the language itself like that. It feels like one giant massive hack. -------------------------------------------------- Things that aren't working properly: -------------------------------------------------- - Settings dialog is not implemented. The dialog is complete but the code to handle the dialog hasn't been constructed yet. - There is a problem with using Qt widgets as a device target on windows, with at least OpenGL: if I have the preview widget automatically resize itself, it seems to cause some sort of video card failure that I don't understand. - Because of the above, resizing the preview widget has been disabled until I can figure out what's going on, so it's currently only a 32x32 area. - Direct3D doesn't seem to render correctly either, seems that the viewport is messed up or something. I'm sort of confused about what's going on with it. - The new main window seems to be triggering more race conditions than the wxWidgets main window dialog did. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this may just be existing race conditions within libobs itself that I just never spotted before (even though I tend to be very thorough with race conditions any time I use variables cross-thread)
2014-01-23 10:53:55 -08:00
*.ilk
*.la
2013-09-30 19:37:13 -07:00
*.o
*.obj
*.pdb
*.res
*.dep
*.zip
*.lnk
*.chm
*~
.DS_Store
*/.DS_Store
*/**/.DS_Store
#flatpak
/.flatpak-builder/
/_flatpak_build/
/flatpak_app/
/repo/
/CI/flatpak/flatpak-github-action-modified-*