En l'instant précis du 14/12/07 06:20, Mark Wedel s'exprimait en ces termes: > Fair enough. But suppose someone checks something in using adobe photoshop > format, and a month later I want to change the image, but don't have > photoshop. > > Is it OK then for me to remove the original (source) photoshop image and > just > have a PNG? Even if the original author is still around, maybe he doesn't > have > time to make the change in the near future. > Well, you can't open the photoshop file, you remake a file using, example, gimp and commit png, gimp, remove photoshop. The source is now gimp. If the final file is similar to original one and original author wants to restart from his photoshop file, fair engouh. He retrieve it from the svn history, manipulate it and commit this: new png, removed gimp, new photoshop. As i said, to the opposite of cvs, svn does handle properly deletions. Original file is still available in history. > And gimp's .xcf files are another odd case here. Pretty much every linux > distro will have gimp, but folks using windows or mac would need to download > it. > Should it be considered proper that the mac/windows person download gimp > and > update the .xcf file, or is it ok for them to just write out a png and remove > the .xcf source? > It's probably less work for them to download the xcf / edit / save as png then open png in photoshop, extract elements, remakes some layers, save both. > Disagree - it costs something here. I'm not really concerned about the > space > - that is trivial. But more the case of whenever I want to modify an png > file, > these are potential steps: > > 1) Check to see if the is a 'source' version of that file in the other > repository. > 2) If so, is it a format I can currently read & write? > 3) If not, is it in a format I can easily get a program that can read/write > it > (or maybe we don't care about this, depending on comment above) > 4) If can't get software & can't write it, now need to remove it from > repository > > As usage go on, maybe we will discover we need to regulate things a bit more. Let's get a free for all for now and see what's popular. >>> As a compromise, I'd suggest that in principal, any format may be >>> allowed, but >>> has to be approved/discussed on a case by case basis. For fairly popular >>> formats or programs, that should pretty much be a rubber stamp. But if >>> someone >>> pops up and wants to add a format no one has ever heard of, answer is >>> probably no. >>> >>> >> Do we have yet a formal general approval process? If yes am ok with it, >> if no, that would just mean the commiter will have final word. >> > > I'd think in most cases, it would be fairly clear cut. Everyone readily > agreed to gimp .xcf > Ok, which version of gimp? That may not matter for xcf, but am pretty sure for adobe, for example we must settle the format (adobe) *and* the version :/ I think the main question is "do we comply to GPL to the point we must give *all* sources, including those of our png? If yes, then if someone modify something with an obscure program, he must commit the source too :/
_______________________________________________ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
