Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
> According to http://registry.gimp.org/changes?max=15 the last change to
> a plug-in was done only a couple of days ago - so it seems the registry
> works at least for some people.
Perhaps, but there are several things which should be possible
which aren't.
First, the majority of the plug-ins in the registry appear to be
abandonware - 1.0 plug-ins that have never been updates to 1.2,
never mind 1.3/2.0. We need a way to clean out the cruft (or at
least hide it away).
Second, the registry could do with a ranking system to have the
most common and/or popular plug-ins appearing on the top of the
lists of plug-ins. The only sorting system I've seen is
alphabetically, which severely limits the usefullness of the site.
Third, it is not possible to attach patches for existing
plug-ins to a plug-in without being a plug-in maintainer. It
would be nice if this were easier to do, perhaps with a comment
system? Although I guess an inscription system makes some
sense...
> > In the meantime, as Carol suggested it might be an idea to use
> > the wiki to collect these kinds of external resources, in the
> > absence of a registry which gets updated.
>
> Hmmm... another duplication of effort? Why have two places to store user
> committed plug-ins? Wouldn't the time be better spent on say,
> maintaining registry.gimp.org?
Sure - "In the meantime" was meant to be "until the plug-in
registry is maintained". I would still like to know who is
running the site. Is Ingo still active on it?
Cheers,
Dave.
--
David Neary,
Lyon, France
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
