On Wed, 2006-09-27 at 15:27 +0200, Raphaël Quinet wrote:
> You mentioned last week that you wouldn't be against switching to
> Tiny-Fu in 2.4 if the remaining problems (mainly the namespace issues)
> could be solved in time. It looks like Kevin had been previously
> discouraged from fixing these problems because there were
> communication problems between you and him. But now he has taken the
> time to work on these changes: you will notice that Tiny-Fu can now
> read *.scm scripts instead of *.sct. I suppose that it will not take
> long until Tiny-Fu can process most Script-Fu scripts unmodified
> (e.g., handling script-fu-register and so on).
Kevin should then tell us about this. He has not been discouraged to do
those changes. I rather had the impression that he didn't want to do
those changes because he seemed to have a different vision for tiny-fu.
I believe that he doesn't want it to replace Script-Fu but I am willing
to change my mind if he declares that this is the goal. We can then
discuss the timeframe and implementation details of such a change.
Gimp-developer mailing list