Re: [Gimp-developer] [Fwd: Some suggestions for the plug-in registry]

2005-08-27 Thread Nathan Summers
On 8/26/05, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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

Re: [Gimp-developer] [Fwd: Some suggestions for the plug-in registry]

2005-08-27 Thread Sven Neumann
Hi, I am not going to respond on your mail in detail, mainly for lack of time. Lots of good points being made and taken. However I would like to state that I am not at all unwilling to mentor new developers. I also think that our (and that includes mine) attitude towards new ideas and requests

Re: [Gimp-developer] [Fwd: Some suggestions for the plug-in registry]

2005-08-27 Thread michael chang
On 8/26/05, Nathan Summers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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,

Re: [Gimp-developer] [Fwd: Some suggestions for the plug-in registry]

2005-08-27 Thread michael chang
On 8/27/05, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I am not going to respond on your mail in detail, mainly for lack of time. Lots of good points being made and taken. However I would like Time is always an important issue, and a lack of it may cause curtness. It'd be nice if everyone

[Gimp-developer] [Fwd: Some suggestions for the plug-in registry]

2005-08-26 Thread Michael Schumacher
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

Re: [Gimp-developer] [Fwd: Some suggestions for the plug-in registry]

2005-08-26 Thread michael chang
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

Re: [Gimp-developer] [Fwd: Some suggestions for the plug-in registry]

2005-08-26 Thread Sven Neumann
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

Re: [Gimp-developer] [Fwd: Some suggestions for the plug-in registry]

2005-08-26 Thread Nathan Summers
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,

Re: [Gimp-developer] [Fwd: Some suggestions for the plug-in registry]

2005-08-26 Thread Sven Neumann
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