Maybe the Geany developers would be willing to use ctags as library if it is maintained again (especially if there will be developer overlap). I remember backporting their improvements to the Python parser was not trivial because of the renaming.

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Frank Fesevur <> wrote:
2013/10/23 Masatake YAMATO <>:
> On Wed, 23 Oct 2013 23:32:48 +1300, Jan Larres <> wrote:
>> As for the project, I would really recommend moving it to GitHub instead
>> of staying on SourceForge.
> I'm strong agree with what Jan wrote.

And converting the current svn repo to a git repository is not
difficult with the "git svn" command. That's how I maintain my local
changes right now.

Just found out that it is not possible to register a new github user
named "ctags". Github says it is a reserved word. I have too little
experience with github to fully understand why and if Darren can claim
the name.

But remember that switching technology doesn't solve problems like
people's time schedule and priorities in life.

> During your absence, I wrote some patches for a tree at github:
> (I've cc'd this mail to Reza Jelveh, the maintainer of the tree.)
> As far as I know, the tree is the most active ctags tree forked from
> I hope both you plan to merge the improvements into one tree.

I think the parsers used by Geany are even better maintained.

Only special thing the Geany teams seems to do is rename some kind
names to c-like kind names. Obviously this should not be done
upstream. But other than that they have much more commits to the
various parsers and several new parsers.

I agree with you that it would be great if all those changes would be
combined in one upstream tree.


October Webinars: Code for Performance
Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance.
Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from
the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register >
Ctags-devel mailing list