On Mon, 2006-10-09 at 19:55 -0400, Kevin Cozens wrote:

> You suggested moving Script-Fu (and pygimp) in to a module outside of the 
> source tree in 2004.

Well, that was two years ago and lots of people have expressed their
opinion that splitting up the gimp tree into stand-alone modules would
be a bad idea. Let's say that I was convinced...

> I would suggest using the Tiny-Fu scripts as they are known to work with 
> Tiny-Fu. The Script-Fu ones may work but I haven't tested them recently and 
> don't particularly feel like going through the process of testing 95+ scripts 
> (again).

Fine with me. But I was assuming that the scripts are identical anyway.
If you prefer to use the ones in Tiny-Fu, you will have to make sure
that you incorporate the recent changes, in particular the blurb review.

> I will work on creating a TinyScheme based Script-Fu. I will want a clear "go 
> ahead" from the core developer(s) before a TinyScheme based version of 
> Script-Fu gets commited to the main GIMP source tree. Once a merge takes 
> place 
> we will be commited to using "Tiny-Fu" due mainly to the number of changes 
> and 
> the hassle it would be to back out all the changes.

Well, Tiny-Fu basically won't exist any longer then. Script-Fu will just
have gotten a major overhaul and a new Scheme interpreter. Given that
this change works well, and I am pretty sure that it will, we will not
want to go back.

I would like to review the patch before it gets committed. But in
general I vote for doing the change. If anyone else has strong
objections for doing this switch now, please speak up.


Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to