Skip to content

Move Kotlin package#9391

Open
guille wants to merge 2 commits into
sublimehq:masterfrom
guille:master
Open

Move Kotlin package#9391
guille wants to merge 2 commits into
sublimehq:masterfrom
guille:master

Conversation

@guille
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@guille guille commented Apr 24, 2026

  • I'm the package's author and/or maintainer.
  • I have read the docs.
  • I have tagged a release with a semver version number.
  • My package repo has a description and a README describing what it's for and how to use it.
  • My package doesn't add context menu entries. *
  • My package doesn't add key bindings. **
  • Any commands are available via the command palette.
  • Preferences and keybindings (if any) are listed in the menu and the command palette, and open in split view.
  • If my package is a syntax it doesn't also add a color scheme. ***
  • I use .gitattributes to exclude files from the package: images, test files, sublime-project/workspace.

Repo: https://github.com/guille/sublime-kotlin

My package is a Kotlin syntax. Rather than have a "Better Kotlin" package I figured this made more sense.

Two disclaimers:

  • The syntax is AI generated. It does fix every open issue I saw on the old package's (and then some) but it is probably not perfect. I am not good at writing syntaxes so any maintaining will also be done with this approach, although syntax tests seem to make it output decent stuff.
  • I have not tried to submit patches the old package. The last commit was 8 years ago, there have been open issues for longer, and I don't feel comfortable dumping a 1000-line syntax file on someone else.

I would understand if the change is rejected. I initially wasn't going to submit it because I don't think a lot of people use ST for Kotlin but it's been pointed out that Sublime Merge would also benefit from a better syntax.

The only "breaking" change beyond better highlighting is the scope name changes from source.Kotlin to source.kotlin. The only places I can imagine that would cause issues is in LSP-Kotlin and AFileIcon. If this is accepted I'd submit patches there too.

Comparison

Before

2026-04-24-15:52:33

After:
2026-04-24-15:53:00

@github-actions
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Package Review

Channel Diff

Removed (none), changed Kotlin, added (none).

Review for Kotlin 2026.04.24.13.41.52

1 notices:
- Consider requiring Sublime Text build >= 4171, where the API is available at import time and these initialization restrictions do not apply.

No failures

No warnings


For more details on the report messages (for example how to resolve them), go to:
https://github.com/packagecontrol/st_package_reviewer/wiki

@guille
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

guille commented Apr 24, 2026

(Alternatively, @vkostyukov if you want to maintain it and cut a new tag in your repo please let me know)

Comment thread repository/k.json
@braver
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

braver commented May 2, 2026

I'm totally ok with transferring the package, although @vkostyukov is of course welcome to object. Let's give that about 2-3 weeks.

If we're doing that, we should als move to tag-based releases and that will also ensure your work gets picked up by existing installations.

I would also propose to make some changes to the readme. Maybe reference the previous package so that people can go back if they need to. And typically a link to language documentation, and stuff like how-to-contribute etc. Like, what are the yaml tests for and how does one work with those? I get the sense that LLMS should be pretty good at this stuff, especially if you start from good syntax tests, and give it good context. Which might also be something you'd want to put in the readme so others can contribute fixes in a way that fit your approach here.

@braver
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

braver commented May 2, 2026

Oh, once we're ready to merge, it would be good to first update the depending packages to be forwards-compatible.

@braver braver added feedback provided The changes and package have been seen by a reviewer awaiting objection Awaiting objection from a current maintainer for removal or replacement takeover Package ownership is changing labels May 2, 2026
@github-actions
Copy link
Copy Markdown

github-actions Bot commented May 2, 2026

Package Review

Channel Diff

Removed (none), changed Kotlin, added (none).

Review for Kotlin master-c353694-2026.04.24.18.45.09

- Tip of master is tagged with 1.0.2. ✅
    Repository: https://github.com/guille/sublime-kotlin

No failures, no warnings


For more details on the report messages (for example how to resolve them), go to:
https://github.com/packagecontrol/st_package_reviewer/wiki

@FichteFoll
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Since this package provides a syntax definition with version: 2, it should target builds 4075+. Any older (notably ST3) builds could be redirected to the old repo still by specifying it as the release channel's base.

@github-actions
Copy link
Copy Markdown

github-actions Bot commented May 2, 2026

Package Review

Channel Diff

Removed (none), changed Kotlin, added (none).

Review for Kotlin master-c353694-2026.04.24.18.45.09

- Tip of master is tagged with 1.0.2. ✅
    Repository: https://github.com/guille/sublime-kotlin

No failures, no warnings


For more details on the report messages (for example how to resolve them), go to:
https://github.com/packagecontrol/st_package_reviewer/wiki

@guille
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

guille commented May 2, 2026

Updated the json to restrict to ST4075, I think I did it correctly but please give it a lookover.

Also added some meat to the README, esp. around the contributing part

As for the other packages with source.Kotlin, both PRs raised.

  • The LSP-Kotlin was forward-compatible and has already been merged (just need to make sure there's a release including the commit before we merge here).
  • AFI has a PR raised but I don't think it can be completely forward/backwards compatible, so I've put it in draft and hopefully that gets in afterwards.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

awaiting objection Awaiting objection from a current maintainer for removal or replacement feedback provided The changes and package have been seen by a reviewer takeover Package ownership is changing

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants