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, bu
On 1 April 2016 at 18:14, Kasim Ahmic wrote:
> 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
I rather like GitLab, and this seems like at least as good a solution
for a plugin registry as any other solution we've considered so far.
In fact, I think GitLab (or some similar solution) would also be a major
improvement for tracking the core GIMP software. As an occasional
contributor just
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 11:41 PM, Andrew Toskin wrote:
>
>
> I rather like GitLab, and this seems like at least as good a solution
> for a plugin registry as any other solution we've considered so far.
>
> In fact, I think GitLab (or some similar solution) would also be a major
> improvement f
> On 2016-04-01 13:32, Pat David wrote:
>
> 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).
> H
Hello,
On Sat, Apr 2, 2016 at 12:18 AM, Andrew Toskin wrote:
>
>
>> On 2016-04-01 13:32, Pat David wrote:
>>
>> 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
>> c
On 02/04/16 00:18, Andrew Toskin wrote:
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 ea
Am 03.04.2016 um 11:58 schrieb Ofnuts:
> On 02/04/16 00:18, Andrew Toskin wrote:
>> Create several smaller collections of scripts, instead of one giant
>> collection.
>
> A single script file can register several separate scripts...
s/scripts/procedures/
--
Regards,
Michael
GPG: 96A8 B38A 72
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).
> > Howev
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 2:50 AM, Akkana Peck wrote:
> 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 e
> Gesendet: Montag, 04. April 2016 um 12:03 Uhr
> Von: "Jehan Pagès"
> When I read this, I understand that I am really not clear.
> So no, I am not saying and have never said that we would grab
> repository from "elsewhere". I know patdavid seemed to have such an
> idea at some point, but I th
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Michael Schumacher wrote:
>> Gesendet: Montag, 04. April 2016 um 12:03 Uhr
>> Von: "Jehan Pagès"
>
>> When I read this, I understand that I am really not clear.
>
>> So no, I am not saying and have never said that we would grab
>> repository from "elsewhere".
> Gesendet: Montag, 04. April 2016 um 15:48 Uhr
> Von: "Jehan Pagès"
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Michael Schumacher wrote:
> > I am also still puzzled how the "one repository per 'script/plugin'" (we
> > really need a better term for that concept) approach will be managed.
>
> Let's cal
On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Michael Schumacher wrote:
>> Gesendet: Montag, 04. April 2016 um 15:48 Uhr
>> Von: "Jehan Pagès"
>
>> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Michael Schumacher wrote:
>
>> > I am also still puzzled how the "one repository per 'script/plugin'" (we
>> > really need a bett
Re: [Gimp-developer] [Gimp-web] Gitlab as a replacement for
registry.gimp.org
On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Michael Schumacher wrote:
>> Gesendet: Montag, 04. April 2016 um 15:48 Uhr
>> Von: "Jehan Pagès"
>
>> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Michael Schumach
as assets?
>
> Kevin
>
>
>
> From: gimp-developer-list on
> behalf of Jehan Pagès
> Sent: 04 April 2016 15:19
> To: Michael Schumacher
> Cc: gimp-web-list; GIMP Developer List
> Subject: Re: [Gimp-developer] [Gimp-web] Gitlab as a replacement for
> regi
I am sorry for perhaps causing any confusion or misunderstandings :(. I
suck at conveying information.
Let me try a slightly different approach that coincides with my thought
process...
We are really approaching two things that are related in this discussion.
1. Registry Replacement
2. GIMP Ass
Hi,
Just giving a few answers. I really can't make the time right now and
I think we will have to discuss this with voice, because it looks like
several things I say are really not understandable (well they are by
me, but my English may be lacking! At least I have to say the same
thing again).
On
Jehan Pagès writes:
[on one repo per asset vs. one repo containing many assets]
> Really I don't understand this point which Akkana is raising. Has
> anyone ever made plugins for various software? I have, for a bunch,
> many dead now, some still living. And never have I ever thought "oh
> let's put
Hi,
I said I would not answer anymore, but I will (hopefully a last time)
because I am weak and can't control my fingers! :P
Anyway this discussion is very frustrating because my emails are not
fully read. I'm sorry to say so Akkana, but your answer below is
either off-topic, or actually going in
Akkana Peck wrote:
> I'm still not clear what the advantage would be of one repo per
> file.
Not to kick a week-old hornet's nest, but I'd like to point out that as a user
looking for extensions/add-ons/scripts/etc, I find it much more convenient to
download/clone a single script without being
Just a quick note for everyone (that either didn't attend LGM or didn't
hear the results of the conversation I had with Joao and Jehan)...
After some back and forth we are currently considering managing our own
infrastructure to host plugins/scripts.
We had a chance to speak (loudly in my case) a
Hi,
For info, I wrote a "bit" of text after the meeting. It's somewhere in
my hard drive, I'll have to look for it. I will publish things on the
wiki so that we can discuss and collaborate on a spec.
Jehan
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 12:07 AM, Pat David wrote:
> Just a quick note for everyone (that
23 matches
Mail list logo
