Sven Neumann wrote: > Hi, > > tonight two new plug-ins were checked into the tree... > <snipped: new plugin descriptions...> > A lot of work has been put into making the plug-in interfaces consistent, > cleaning up the code and adding gettext support. As long as these new > plug-ins > don't adhere to the new standards, I see no chance to get them included. > I know that I have added new features after the freeze myself, so if someone > thinks that these new plug-ins are really that useful and wants to take care > of them, please try to persuade me... > > Otherwise I vote for not accepting them now. > > Salut, Sven No persuasion here. To be fair, I don't recall a posting enumerating what these 'new standards' may be; if I'm wrong, apologies and please correct me. If one is wanting, your list of (1) consistent interface (2) coding standards (GNU or close relatives) (3) Internationalized is a decent start. That said, I've always thought (by some unfounded supposition) that plug-ins would generally begin life as an announcement here (Paul F Harrison <pfh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> as a case in point) and in gimp-user, and the author would place the effort in the registry - perhaps, or perhaps maintain a download place on his or her own page. This, I supposed, would be the characteristic state of the the vast majority of plug-ins. Relatively few - that do one thing of common utility very, very well or which work very well in combination with other very adaptable plug-ins - would migrate into a standard Gimp distribution. To these qualities, one adds (1), (2), and (3), above, and - in the spirit of the Plug-in Maintainer's List - acquires (4a) either an author engaged in active support or (4b) a maintainer willing to serve as author surrogate. The presence of these last two attributes, I feel, serve as a harsh, but fair, barometer of whether a plug-in warrants inclusion in a core distribution. For if an author becomes too busy to further maintain a plug-in, and the plug-in fails to enthrall the active interest of a maintainer, then perhaps the plug-in is neither one of common utility, or particularly useful in conjunction with other plug-ins; it fails to capture a community of supporters, and, I contend, its absence from the standard Gimp distribution won't be sorely felt. In that light, a plug-in should find its way into CVS only after its utility has engendered a supporting community, so that its CVS inclusion is a foregone conclusion and not an incidental act of happenstance. My two U. S. cents. Garry Osgood
