Hi, Daniel Rogers <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Sven, I think what he was saying (and please speak up if I > misinterpreted your english) that he would like to become the > current maintainer of the current tiff plugin. That is something the current maintainer of the plug-in has to decide. > I certainly see no reason why this person can't have responsibility > over the current plugin as long as he doesn't revert the > improvements made to the gimp-2.0 plugin. I am certainly not trying to discourage anyone from taking responsibility. > Also, the best way of gettting rid of the #if's would be to put some > app specific functionality into a seperate file and compile or > include only one driver file for the tiffreader plugin. I am all > for this. I suspect, though you haven't said, that you are also > working on the CinePaint plug-in. It would be good to share as much > code as possible between our projects, IMO. Since both projects build on a different framework this attempt is IMO doomed to fail. Especially since judging from the project's roadmaps the two frameworks will continue to diverge in the future. I really don't want to see this code replace the current tiff plug-in because I believe it will be a maintaince nightmare. When I grep the plug-in sources, I don't want to get hits from codepaths that aren't used by the GIMP version. When I review diffs I don't want to have to care about changes that aren't in our code. If we would attempt to do this, it would be as if we would decide to keep plug-ins for gimp-1.3 and gimp-1.2 in the same branch in CVS. We could add #ifdef's for the parts where the APIs differ and so we wouldn't have to merge bug-fixes between the branches. Why aren't we doing this? Because it would be a nightmare to maintain. It's a lot easier to merge a change done in the HEAD branch to the gimp-1-2 branch and vice versa than it would be if you had to make sure you are doing the same fix in two branches of a preprocessor directive. Anyone who would want to seriously work on this code would have to be able to compile the plug-in for all supported applications. This would put an insanely high burden on anyone willing to work on this plug-in. > At worse, you can put it all in the same file and #if away the block > of fuctions specific to a certain app, which is _MUCH_ more readable > then having #ifs in the middle of the code. What you will end up with if go that way is basically what I suggest to have: One tiff.c file for The GIMP, a different tiff.c for CinePaint. IMO it will be easier to merge changes between two or more versions of the plug-in than to attempt to maintain one plug-in for two or more applications. Please don't get me wrong. I am not trying to discourage anyone. On the contrary, I would welcome to see the projects share code and Kai-Uwe surely did some improvements to the tiff plug-in that we want to see in GIMP CVS more sooner than later. However I dislike the proposed way of doing this. IMO we should merge the improvements one by one. Later bug-fixes can be merged between the two projects based on patches. This will IMO be a lot more convenient. Sven
