On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 5:16 AM, Alexandre Prokoudine
<alexandre.prokoud...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 12:19 PM, scl wrote:

How about mentioning the patched and extended builds of other eager
contributors like Partha and skl or even Gimp Paint Studio and
CinePaint in a separate fork section of the Download page?

The general agreement in the team is that we don't feel comfortable
promoting builds whose packagers do not provide information about
changes they introduced (if any). To make this more transparent for
the community, we are preparing a document on packaging requirements
that we'd like (but don't demand) GIMP packagers to meet.

On  28.12.2015 at 2:13 PM Partha Bagchi wrote:
> While I am not against your policy, this is first I am hearing about
> this agreement. Of course this may have been a verbal agreement within
> the team.

There was also a similar agreement at the LGM 2014, see
http://wiki.gimp.org/wiki/LGM2014Minutes#Malicious_and_reputation-damaging_installers_and_apps, 3):

"3) How do we deal with GIMP builds that come with additional plug-ins, such as Simone Karin Lehmann’s or Partha Bagchi’s build?

Agreement to 3) 3rd party plug-ins and improvements to OS-integration (OS X, Windows, etc.) are ok. ? Shall they become part of the official build? Changing GIMP’s designed behaviour, like modifications to the Save-Export-behaviour must not become part of the official GIMP builds."

Neither your nor skl's builds are considered as malware. The
question came up when we discussed public GIMP builds with modifications. I hope this helps a bit.



gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address:    gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

Reply via email to