Andrew Toskin writes:
> > On 2016-04-01 13:32, Pat David wrote:
> > 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).
> Whether or not we can get plugin developers to follow it, separating
> scripts and plugins into different repositories seems like a good
> recommendation, for a number of reasons. For plugin and script authors,
> it would make managing bugs and user feedback easier.
It would make managing repositories much harder, though.
I currently have roughly 20 GIMP scripts and plug-ins in my
gimp-plugins repository, and would want to share maybe 15 of them
(some are silly and not worth sharing). Please don't force me to
create 20 different repositories, most containing only a single
python script. It clutters my github (or, I assume, gitlab) profile,
assuming they'd even let me create that many repos; it makes it hard
to keep multiple machines current since I have to cd into each of
those repos and make sure they're in sync; and it's harder to set
up (I have to do things like edit .git/config by hand in 20 repos
instead of just one to do things like make pushurl !- url).
> For end users,
> it's also annoying to clone a large repository when you're only
> interested in a small subset of its contents.
That's true. But nobody's suggesting that end users would be
cloning git repos, are they? They'd just be running some friendly
UI to say "give me the files I need for the foo plugin", and the
backend downloads the right files and puts them in the right place.
End users will never know they're using git at all.
gimp-web-list mailing list