[Gimp-developer] [Fwd: Some suggestions for the plug-in registry]
As promised on IRC, my suggestions for the registry. Originally sent to the maintainer of the registry. Original Message Subject: Some suggestions for the plug-in registry Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 22:13:58 +0200 From: Michael Schumacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi, I'd like to propose some additional features and changes for the registry: 1. Make it possible to indicate that a plug-in requires GIMP 2.2 Currently, everyone seems to choose GIMP 2.0 even for plug-ins that make use of new features of GIMP 2.2, e.g. the previews. Is it already possible to choose GIMP 2.2. here, or is this missing? 2. Compress the recent changes list Currently, there are multiple entries for one plug-in in this list. However, there is no indication what exactly was changed - without this, it would also be sufficient and IMO more useful to list the 15 most recently changed different plug-ins. 3. Make the recent changes available as a RSS feed This is merely and enahcement, but it would enable other sites (e.g. the gimp community all over the world) to have a list of the recent changes as well. This could help to make the registry more popular as well. 4. Add a way to indicate the availability of binaries for a specific platform This would be a nice addition for users who can't or don't want to compile plug-ins themselves and don't have a reliable source they can get precompiled stuff from. This should also be present in the various overviews (by type, by category). -- The GIMP http://www.gimp.org | IRC: irc://irc.gimp.org/gimp Wiki http://wiki.gimp.org | .de: http://gimpforum.de Plug-ins http://registry.gimp.org | ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] [Fwd: Some suggestions for the plug-in registry]
On 8/26/05, Michael Schumacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As promised on IRC, my suggestions for the registry. Originally sent to the maintainer of the registry. Sounds awesome. 1. Make it possible to indicate that a plug-in requires GIMP 2.2 2.3, and 2.4 options would be nice here too, I suppose. And also, change the list of links of types to a drop down box, maybe? (Dunno.) 2. Compress the recent changes list 3. Make the recent changes available as a RSS feed Very useful, then I can add the RSS feed to my browser. ^^ 4. Add a way to indicate the availability of binaries for a specific platform Something similar to the way tucows.com does their listings would be a good idea. Eg: = [Plugin name] . [Win] [Linux RPM] [Linux Deb] [Mac OS X] [Source] [Plugin catagories] [User based rating (maybe, maybe not)] [Language/format] [Requirements (optional/if specified)] [Plugin description summary]... [more info link to full description] = This could be unified, as well (e.g. anywhere plugins are listed this format would go there). -- ~Mike - Just my two cents - No man is an island, and no man is unable. ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] [Fwd: Some suggestions for the plug-in registry]
Hi, michael chang [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 1. Make it possible to indicate that a plug-in requires GIMP 2.2 2.3, and 2.4 options would be nice here too, I suppose. And also, change the list of links of types to a drop down box, maybe? (Dunno.) 2.3 is a development version with no API guarantees whatsoever. The API is constantly changing and noone should be developing any plug-ins for it. And 2.4 shouldn't be added before the 2.4 release. Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] authors.xml, volunteer needed
Sven Neumann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: http://cvs.gnome.org/viewcvs/gimp/authors.xml?view=markup I am now looking for a volunteer to go over authors.xml and check what roles apply to the people listed there. Perhaps also check that noone important is missing (last time we did that was before the 2.2 release). No coding skills required, you don't even need to know anything but the mere basics about XML. Some knowledge of the GIMP history will definitely help though... No response whatsoever. So there isn't even interest in helping with the simple tasks any longer? This is becoming somewhat frustrating... I am pretty sure that it is *not* simple and that there are very few people being able to do that. And no, I don't think I could do this. There are too many names in that file I've never heard of and I have no interest at all go digging through ancient maillogs or changelogs just to figure out if someone was a contributor or doc-writer or whatever. I am surprised that you're surprised about the underwhelming response. Bye, Simon -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://simon.budig.de/ ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] authors.xml, volunteer needed
On 8/26/05, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: http://cvs.gnome.org/viewcvs/gimp/authors.xml?view=markup I am now looking for a volunteer to go over authors.xml and check what roles apply to the people listed there. Perhaps also check that noone important is missing (last time we did that was before the 2.2 release). No coding skills required, you don't even need to know anything but the mere basics about XML. Some knowledge of the GIMP history will definitely help though... No response whatsoever. So there isn't even interest in helping with the simple tasks any longer? This is becoming somewhat frustrating... I wasn't sure if I should attempt the task or not, and was kinda hoping someone else would take the task (because I'm fiddling with some other things in POV-Ray and Perl, among other things). But I believe I could attempt this, if you can point me generally at the document sources I might want to look up, and what special instructions I'd need for submitting the finished product. -- ~Mike - Just my two cents - No man is an island, and no man is unable. ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] authors.xml, volunteer needed
On 8/26/05, Simon Budig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sven Neumann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: http://cvs.gnome.org/viewcvs/gimp/authors.xml?view=markup I am now looking for a volunteer to go over authors.xml and check what roles apply to the people listed there. Perhaps also check that noone important is missing (last time we did that was before the 2.2 No response whatsoever. So there isn't even interest in helping with the simple tasks any longer? This is becoming somewhat frustrating... I am pretty sure that it is *not* simple and that there are very few people being able to do that. And no, I don't think I could do this. I believe that compared to coding C++, this is supposed to be considered simple - the generic, old, mundane task of compiling a list of names. ^^ I believe that in the olden days this used to be the sort of job an entry level worker would do in a corporation. There are too many names in that file I've never heard of and I have no interest at all go digging through ancient maillogs or changelogs just to figure out if someone was a contributor or doc-writer or whatever. What about a collaborative effort? E.g. someone goes and checks through these things, and then someone can double check. Or the list can be split in half, and then if there's ones we're unsure about we send them to the other person (and vice versa). -- ~Mike - Just my two cents - No man is an island, and no man is unable. ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] authors.xml, volunteer needed
Hi, michael chang [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I wasn't sure if I should attempt the task or not, and was kinda hoping someone else would take the task (because I'm fiddling with some other things in POV-Ray and Perl, among other things). But I believe I could attempt this, if you can point me generally at the document sources I might want to look up, and what special instructions I'd need for submitting the finished product. This isn't really a simple task for someone who has just joined GIMP development. We have a number of people who are around for some years already and should know quite a few of the names in the list of authors. Probably one of them should do it. Whoever wants to give it a try, the ChangeLogs will be a useful resource. At the moment, almost everyone is listed as author. If in doubt, just keep it that way. Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] authors.xml, volunteer needed
Hi, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Whoever wants to give it a try, the ChangeLogs will be a useful resource. At the moment, almost everyone is listed as author. If in doubt, just keep it that way. Perhaps I should add that I don't expect a lot of changes at all. There are probably one or two handful of people listed as author who should also be mentioned as documenters and/or artists and a few of them have never contributed any code and should thus not be listed as authors. Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] [Fwd: Some suggestions for the plug-in registry]
On 8/26/05, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, michael chang [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 1. Make it possible to indicate that a plug-in requires GIMP 2.2 2.3, and 2.4 options would be nice here too, I suppose. And also, change the list of links of types to a drop down box, maybe? (Dunno.) 2.3 is a development version with no API guarantees whatsoever. The API is constantly changing and noone should be developing any plug-ins for it. If you have such a closed Gimp Club attitude, why make developer releases at all? After all, all the members of the Gimp Club have cvs accounts. One of the most important reasons that we have preview releases is so that when 2.4 is released, third-party plugins are already available for it. It's abundantly obvious that 2.3 is a developer edition, with all that entails, and both users and plugin developers are aware of the fact that things can break, but that doesn't mean that it's counterproductive to track development and to test the new features. Would you prefer that serious problems in newly added plug-in apis not be discovered until after they are frozen? Since 2.3 cvs contains a plugin that was originally maintained separately, and GIMP was developed against gtk 1.3 long before API freeze, it's obvious that you already know this, which makes me ask the question: why did you say this in the first place? Seriously, it served no other purpose than discouraging people from testing the 2.3 series. GIMP isn't exactly overwhelmed with volunteers. We should be doing everything we can to encourage more people to try out 2.3, and more people to be testing its new features. Yes, that even includes those features that have to be accessed programmatically. Anyone who is capible of developing a plugin against 2.3 is capible of fixing any breakage if we change a non-frozen API. And 2.4 shouldn't be added before the 2.4 release. That's a matter of taste. After all, if 2.4 is backwards compatible with 2.0 plugins, there are a ton of plugins that are already 2.4 compatible. What's not a matter of taste is that plug-ins shouldn't be marked as 2.4 compatible if they use non-frozen APIs. After the API is frozen is a different matter. Rockwalrus ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] [Fwd: Some suggestions for the plug-in registry]
Hi, Nathan Summers [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 2.3 is a development version with no API guarantees whatsoever. The API is constantly changing and noone should be developing any plug-ins for it. If you have such a closed Gimp Club attitude, why make developer releases at all? After all, all the members of the Gimp Club have cvs accounts. One of the most important reasons that we have preview releases is so that when 2.4 is released, third-party plugins are already available for it. It's abundantly obvious that 2.3 is a developer edition, with all that entails, and both users and plugin developers are aware of the fact that things can break, but that doesn't mean that it's counterproductive to track development and to test the new features. Would you prefer that serious problems in newly added plug-in apis not be discovered until after they are frozen? The only reason I don't want to see a 2.3 version in a plug-in registry is that doesn't seem to make much sense. After all any new API could change with the next new minor 2.3 release. The version listed in the registry would also have to include the micro version number then. I am deliberately ignoring the hostile attitude of your mail. We both know very well that we don't like each other. There's no point in continuing this in public. Feel free to flame me in private mail. Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
