I personally am a huge supporter of redoing the registry, and I like the ideas you've proposed here. My only concern is one that was actually brought up by someone else a few months ago; registry integration within GIMP and the possibility of viruses.
I don't quite remember who mentioned it, but they brought up that registry integration within GIMP itself could potentially open the doors to viruses unless a virus detection feature was built into GIMP as well. Now, I'm not entirely sure how true this is but I would like to hear a final say on this whether this is an actual issue or not. If it is an issue, what would be the best way to handle it? I'd imagine that building virus scanning within GIMP would take quite a long time and be pretty impractical. As such, I would suggest that we go with a self hosted solution so that we could incorporate a virus scanner on there to scan all the uploaded assets. Either that, or a hosted solution like GitLab that come with a virus scanning option along with it. Again, not sure how much of an issue this even is. Just a thought. - Kasim Ahmić Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 1, 2016, at 4:32 PM, Pat David <patda...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Continuing on some discussions from irc... > > Registry.gimp.org is down for the count. > > I was thinking recently about some ideas for a possible replacement. > Mostly thinking along the lines of what made the registry work well for > folks. > > In the rest of this email, I'll use the term "asset(s)" to refer to things > like plug-ins, scripts, or brushes/gradients/curves/other assets. > > Some essential functionality based on the old registry drupal instance: > > 1. Upload/Download assets for GIMP. > 2. Describe the asset (usually by the uploader). > 3. Comment on the assets. > > This was handled previously by using drupal, which treated each entry as a > post/node that included the ability to upload files, write about the files > as a post, and had comment threads below it. > > Keeping this functionality would be good, I think. The ability to post an > asset is a given, but the ability to interact around it helps foster the > community (and provides nice feedback for the authors). > > From those thoughts, what would be nice to have in a replacement: > > 1. Provide at least the same previous functionality (as listed above). > 2. Managed or easier to manage and keep updated. > 3. Easier account management. > 4. Collaborative environment for shared assets > 5. Support possible GIMP integration in the future (one-click asset > install?). > > > > GitLab? > ====== > > Initially, I had thought Github might be a good option for this but given > its closed-source nature decided to investigate something like GitLab > instead. > > I like this idea personally due to some nice infrastructure: > > 1. The service is hosted + managed (and available as Free Software just in > case we felt we needed to break out and host it ourselves). > 2. The service integrates OAuth sign-in using a few different account types > (lowers barrier to entry to participate). > a. they use accounts, Google, Twitter, Github, or bitbucket accounts > for sign-in. > 3. Projects maintain all the git-goodness for control and tracking > 4. Projects created as a git project can have a full description/README > along with issue tracking integrated in the site > > So, we can fulfill the original registry functionality and get the added > benefit of a git infrastructure for those wanting to contribute, user > accounts using OAuth to make it easy to participate, and the ability to do > some interesting things (git submodules). > > In speaking with Jehan about this, we should also consider what might be > needed to support the ability to install assets from within GIMP in the > future easily. > > > Organization > ========= > > Jehan suggested that each script/plugin/asset have it's own git repo. > This would be handy, particularly if script authors did this as well (as it > considerably eases the inclusion of external repos as submodules). > However, akk points out that many folks don't (won't?) organize their repos > in this way (it gets a little... unwieldy pretty quickly if you have many > scripts). > > I'd like some input on what would make the most sense or work best for > possible organization of repos. > > I was also thinking that we could include some simple metadata in both any > script files and the README.md files as a means to possibly help parsing > relevant information for automated inclusion at a later date (GIMP plug-ins > installer type of idea). > > > Curation > ====== > > Initially I was thinking that curating the scripts for inclusion would be > important. It's certainly possible for a smaller subset of all of the > available scripts from the registry now to pick out ones that we use and > check that they're not malicious and properly tagged/included. For > instance, there's a handful of scripts that I personally find myself using > often and can help validate/curate for inclusion. I don't mind doing more > as needed. > > > I just wanted to get a discussion started about how we might consider > moving forward on something like this. I think the scripts/plug-ins are > important enough to users that it would be good to try and get something up > and running soon. > > I have started experimenting with including submodules from other author > repos and how it might look here: > > https://gitlab.com/GIMP/GIMP-Scripts/tree/master > > I look forward to hearing some thoughts on this! > > pat > -- > Pat David > https://pixls.us > http://blog.patdavid.net > _______________________________________________ > gimp-web-list mailing list > firstname.lastname@example.org > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-web-list _______________________________________________ gimp-web-list mailing list email@example.com https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-web-list