Sven Neumann wrote:

> Hi,
> tonight two new plug-ins were checked into the tree...

> <snipped: new plugin descriptions...>

> A lot of work has been put into making the plug-in interfaces consistent,
> cleaning up the code and adding gettext support. As long as these new
> plug-ins
> don't adhere to the new standards, I see no chance to get them included.

> I know that I have added new features after the freeze myself, so if someone
> thinks that these new plug-ins are really that useful and wants to take care
> of them, please try to persuade me...
> Otherwise I vote for not accepting them now.
> Salut, Sven

No persuasion here.

To be fair, I don't recall a posting enumerating what these
'new standards' may be; if I'm wrong, apologies and please
correct me. If one is wanting, your list of (1) consistent interface
(2) coding standards (GNU or close relatives) (3) Internationalized
is a decent start.

That said, I've always thought (by some unfounded supposition)
that plug-ins would generally begin life as an announcement
here (Paul F Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> as a case in point)
and in gimp-user, and the author would place the effort in the
registry - perhaps, or perhaps maintain a download place on his
or her own page. This, I supposed, would be the characteristic
state of the the vast majority of plug-ins.

Relatively few - that do one thing of common utility very, very
well or which work very well in combination with other very
adaptable plug-ins - would migrate into a standard
Gimp distribution. To these qualities, one adds (1), (2), and (3),
above, and - in the spirit of the Plug-in Maintainer's List -
acquires (4a) either an author engaged in active support or (4b)
a maintainer willing to serve as author surrogate.

The presence of these last two attributes, I feel, serve as a
harsh, but fair, barometer of whether a plug-in warrants
inclusion in a core distribution. For if an author becomes too
busy to further maintain a plug-in, and the plug-in fails to
enthrall the active interest of a maintainer, then perhaps the
plug-in is neither one of common utility, or particularly
useful in conjunction with other plug-ins; it fails to capture
a community of supporters, and, I contend, its absence from
the standard Gimp distribution won't be sorely felt.

In that light, a plug-in should find its way into CVS only
after its utility has engendered a  supporting community,
so that its CVS inclusion is a foregone conclusion and
not an incidental act of happenstance.

My two U. S. cents.

Garry Osgood

Reply via email to