On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 18:06:19 +0200, Alexander Rabtchevich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I can foresee the next situation with the Gimp 2.4 appearing: a good deal of people asking, why all their scripts do not work anymore. And most of that poor users took these scripts from the official registry.gimp.org. Nobody is guilty, but the users suffer.

He who breaks is guilty, surely?

Users should not have to deal with this sort of situation.

If there is a strong intent to replace script-fu by tiny-fu, there should be some decision made in advance how to handle the upcoming incompatibility. There can be several steps done _before_the_fact_: 1. Of course, a well visible item at the download page about the incompatibility. 2. Anyway, short and understandable howto describing rewriting rules of Gimp script-fu scripts into tiny-fu, even automatic translation script if it is possible. 3. Mails sent to registry script writers with ask to rewrite their scripts.

We see already how messy this could get.

The second item is required in any case. It is not very good to replace things incompatible without providing users some way to overcome it. Do not leave users with their troubles without help!

Just my 5c.

Linux is already a jungle of dependancy and compatability issues. The primary function of the multitudenous distros is to handle this nightmare on behalf of thier collective user-base. The situation should not be exasperated.

Bringing in such incompatiblities inside a project from one minor release to another seems unacceptable to me (as a user).

This will be even less acceptable to Windows users who have always been used to the highest level of backwards compatability.

The user should not have to deal with worse than "Older format scripts have been found on your system, do you want to covert them now?"

If that cannot be achieved, either the change should not take place or Fu should be retained in parallel until at least Gimp-3.0

[IMHO....2c, flame-retarder, etc.]
Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to