Kai-Uwe Behrmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Robin Rowe installed an compatibility layer so nearly all gimp-1.2
> plug-ins can compile. I think this is an essential step to make the
> distance of both applications smaller not greater. As long as we talk
> about plug-ins, why not use the common interface in both directions?
> For instance, to enable CinePaint support for the orientation tag in tiff,
> I am willing to add the missed flip PDB entry. I see there no problem.

There might be a compatibility layer for GIMP-1.2 but the GIMP-2.0 API
is different and I don't think backwards compatibility is our goal.

> > Anyone who would want to seriously work on this code would have to be
> > able to compile the plug-in for all supported applications. This would
> > put an insanely high burden on anyone willing to work on this plug-in.
> It is up to the responsible maintainer, IMHO, to make changes compile in
> an specific application. I can imagine that something changed in the GIMP
> specific part will need some overwork by me for CinePaint or filmgimp (as
> long as I need the old gui).

So why should the code be shared then? If it needs manual interaction,
it will be a lot easier to merge changes betwenn two separate files
than to keep two versions in the same file consistent. I am very
serious about this.
> > What you will end up with if go that way is basically what I
> > suggest to have: One tiff.c file for The GIMP, a different tiff.c
> > for CinePaint. IMO it will be easier to merge changes between two
> > or more versions of the plug-in than to attempt to maintain one
> > plug-in for two or more applications.
> I work now over one year on this plug-in. The point for me is they
> diverged as I needed to fix things and added new capabilities. Many
> variable names changed. So it is harder to jump from one plug-in to
> the other. I did the big change with the CinePaint plug-in in order
> to adapt Nick Lamb s big overhaul. It took me much time after the
> merge to get the thing working again. Now there are many new things
> coming from my side.  Equal who does this work GIMPs maintainer or
> I, this will be much wasted time.  What I offer is to set up the
> base of an potential, maintainable, mostly common plug-in, with
> further need by me to make things more clear.

I agree that it makes sense to make the code for the two plug-ins more
common since it will make it easier to merge changes between the two
but I am not going to accept any ifdef's in GIMP CVS that aren't
strictly necessary for the GIMP plug-in alone.

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to