Well, I don't think it's much of a controversy yet: so far there's only one user supporting it, and one that doesn't. Haven't heard from anyone else but me and "Lajos Molnar (orfanik)" yet. I'm the one who posted it, so ofcourse I'm in favor of some kind of change.
But how about a middle road? Currently the only way to add a directory is by clicking a tree view of the filesystem, but how about allowing users to type in the directory in a textbox? That way, I can type in '.', and Lajos can type in "../project" if he wants to.
Though I'm still not sure what he means by this comment left at sourceforge:
I have sources paralell to my projectdir and this sources call headers from my projectdir. (we should NOT using "common" include dirs, all programmers use the own dirs - it's internal rights)
What I get from this is that he has a filesystem layout like this:
some_root
|-+- project
| +- headers
+-- sources
where:- "projects/" is the directory his Code::Blocks file is located,
- he wants to include headers from "project/headers/" into files in "sources/",
- "sources/" is shared with other programmers but "project/" isn't.
[/list:u]I still don't see what the problem would be with this setup if the "project/" dir is referred to as "." instead of "../project" when calling gcc etc. with "project/" as the working directory: it'll find the headers included as "headers/some_header.h" just fine with either option, and shouldn't make a difference for anything else either.