On Tue, 7 Sep 2004, Alan Horkan wrote:

> > Replacing Script-Fu with Tiny-Fu could help push Tiny-Fu along a bit
> > (ie. with translations) if it isn't fully ready yet by exposing it to
> > more users but what is in the best interest of GIMP and its users?
> I know I'd much prefer another stable release with Script-Fu in it first,
> but that is my entirely subjective opinion.
> I fear having to rewrite some of my scripts having already written gimp
> 1.2 and gimp 2.0 versions.  Compatibility is important to me, even if only
> small changes are necessary it causes problems.  I dont relish the
> prospect of new scripts I write not being usable by people who still have
> gimp 2.0.x or even 1.2, users are still requesting backports of scripts to
> 1.2.  It may seem like Gimp 2 has been available for ages, particularly
> for those who have been using gimp 1.3 but Gimp 2.0 was only released this
> summer.
> That said I'll certainly hope to instal Tiny-Fu alongside Script-Fu and
> sort things out after 2.2.

Given that 2.2 is supposed to be api-compatible with 2.0, I think that
should extend to the scheme extension as well.

Also, I'll again repeat my objection to the idea that the scheme extension
be packaged separately from GIMP.  We have always had Script-Fu as a
universal -- the one scripting system you could count on for all gimp
installations on every platform.  It would be quite a shame if that was no
longer the case.


Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to