Henrik Brix Andersen wrote: > According to http://registry.gimp.org/changes?max=15 the last change to > a plug-in was done only a couple of days ago - so it seems the registry > works at least for some people. Perhaps, but there are several things which should be possible which aren't. First, the majority of the plug-ins in the registry appear to be abandonware - 1.0 plug-ins that have never been updates to 1.2, never mind 1.3/2.0. We need a way to clean out the cruft (or at least hide it away). Second, the registry could do with a ranking system to have the most common and/or popular plug-ins appearing on the top of the lists of plug-ins. The only sorting system I've seen is alphabetically, which severely limits the usefullness of the site. Third, it is not possible to attach patches for existing plug-ins to a plug-in without being a plug-in maintainer. It would be nice if this were easier to do, perhaps with a comment system? Although I guess an inscription system makes some sense... > > In the meantime, as Carol suggested it might be an idea to use > > the wiki to collect these kinds of external resources, in the > > absence of a registry which gets updated. > > Hmmm... another duplication of effort? Why have two places to store user > committed plug-ins? Wouldn't the time be better spent on say, > maintaining registry.gimp.org? Sure - "In the meantime" was meant to be "until the plug-in registry is maintained". I would still like to know who is running the site. Is Ingo still active on it? Cheers, Dave. -- David Neary, Lyon, France E-Mail: bolsh@xxxxxxxx
