On 20 May 2001, at 1:54, Guillermo S. Romero / Familia Romero wrote: > collin@xxxxxxxxx (2001-05-20 at 0133.49 +0200): > > > Regarding the question to include it with core Gimp: As already > > > discussed here several times, the plan is to distribute less > > > plug-ins with the Gimp core package instead of adding new ones. > > Have you got a link to some of these discussions? I could not find > > them in the archive. The only thing I could find was a mention of a > > plug-in page at Source Forge: > > People discuss things in many ways, not just mail lists. Things like > real meets, IRC and private mail are nice examples, and Gimp staff is > not different. They had a meet past year IIRC, you can read them talk > in the #gimp channel about ideas and you can mail them privately if > needed. > > You can use those methods or wait until somebody writes a note to the > list or in a webpage. You can also use those methods, and then write > the note yourself. ;P This is all very nice for a future collection of links, but it does not help now. :-) Am I to understand that there is no recorded instance of this discussion? Well, let's start now, then, so that next time we can point to the mailing list archives. First of all a definition of the problem area: what are considered plug-ins? Everything that goes into the directory 'plug-ins'? Anything else? When talking about scripts earliers, I noticed that there is no clear way of distinguishing which scripts belong in the core distribution and which don't. I suggest we tackle this problem (first?). My suggestion is that the following plug-ins belong to the core distribution: - those that perform a task that the GIMP should have provided for itself or will provide for in the future; - those that will help other plug-in authors better understand how to write plug-ins; - those that will make the GIMP look good when compared to other raster image editors; and - those that perform a task the best in its field. Can such a distinction be made? -- branko collin collin@xxxxxxxxx
