"Robin Rowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Pardon me if I misspoke based on recollection. I have now referred
> back to your post of December 2, 2002. You said:
> [ We often apply patches from people that don't have CVS commit
> access. I'd like to see the names of the patch authors in the list of
> contributors but it's not trivial to extract them from the ChangeLog
> entries. ]

Not trivial meant that it will be difficult to write a script that
does this automatically. It doesn't mean that it can't be done for a
particular piece of code.

> For years you have been saying that something that makes GIMP great
> is that you have taken the code through a major clean-up process. I
> wanted to understand how GIMP does refactoring without being held
> back by GPL/LGPL licensing barriers. However, you say above you
> rarely do refactoring.

Please have a look at the core and compare it with the codebase four
years ago. You will notice that the GIMP core has been refactored into
a number of subsystems with clear dependencies.

> Why do you suppose little GIMP application code has migrated into
> libraries?  Is refactoring unimportant?

Refactoring doesn't necessarily mean moving code from the core to our
libraries. Moving code to libgimp* only makes sense if it provides
functionality that is useful for plug-ins. That isn't very often the
case. Most of the time it's better to expose the functionality to the
plug-ins through the PDB.

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to