Alan Horkan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> 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.

I agree that backward compatibility is important also on the scripts
level. There should be a way to let scripts written for 2.0 work in
2.2 without any need to change the script. I am under the impression
that this won't be the case if we ship with Tiny-Fu as a Script-Fu
replacement. Kevin, is that correct?

Now what can we do about this? I see a number of possible solutions:

(1) Ship with Script-Fu, package Tiny-Fu seperately and advertize it
    as the better alternative. This would certainly delay the switch
    to Tiny-Fu.

(2) Strip out Script-Fu and offer both Script-Fu and Tiny-Fu as
    scripting extensions. Most packagers will choose to bundle
    Script-Fu with GIMP so for the casual user this would look like
    solution (1). It would however make it a lot easier to remove
    Script-Fu from your GIMP installation if you decide that you
    prefer Tiny-Fu and have all your scripts converted.

(3) Make Tiny-Fu 100% compatible with Script-Fu. I have no idea how
    feasible this is but I think it would be desirable to have a
    backward compatibility mode in Tiny-Fu. We then would have the
    following choice:
     (a) replace Script-Fu with Tiny-Fu
     (b) throw out Script-Fu and package Tiny-Fu separately

My favorite solution is (3b) but I don't know if that is doable in the
given time frame. Otherwise I'd favor (2).

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to