Hi, Alan Horkan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I fear having to rewrite some of my scripts having already written > gimp 1.2 and gimp 2.0 versions. Compatibility is important to me, > even if only small changes are necessary it causes problems. I dont > relish the prospect of new scripts I write not being usable by > people who still have gimp 2.0.x or even 1.2, users are still > requesting backports of scripts to 1.2. It may seem like Gimp 2 has > been available for ages, particularly for those who have been using > gimp 1.3 but Gimp 2.0 was only released this summer. I agree that backward compatibility is important also on the scripts level. There should be a way to let scripts written for 2.0 work in 2.2 without any need to change the script. I am under the impression that this won't be the case if we ship with Tiny-Fu as a Script-Fu replacement. Kevin, is that correct? Now what can we do about this? I see a number of possible solutions: (1) Ship with Script-Fu, package Tiny-Fu seperately and advertize it as the better alternative. This would certainly delay the switch to Tiny-Fu. (2) Strip out Script-Fu and offer both Script-Fu and Tiny-Fu as scripting extensions. Most packagers will choose to bundle Script-Fu with GIMP so for the casual user this would look like solution (1). It would however make it a lot easier to remove Script-Fu from your GIMP installation if you decide that you prefer Tiny-Fu and have all your scripts converted. (3) Make Tiny-Fu 100% compatible with Script-Fu. I have no idea how feasible this is but I think it would be desirable to have a backward compatibility mode in Tiny-Fu. We then would have the following choice: (a) replace Script-Fu with Tiny-Fu (b) throw out Script-Fu and package Tiny-Fu separately My favorite solution is (3b) but I don't know if that is doable in the given time frame. Otherwise I'd favor (2). Sven _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer