Hi, Kai-Uwe Behrmann <web@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Robin Rowe installed an compatibility layer so nearly all gimp-1.2 > plug-ins can compile. I think this is an essential step to make the > distance of both applications smaller not greater. As long as we talk > about plug-ins, why not use the common interface in both directions? > For instance, to enable CinePaint support for the orientation tag in tiff, > I am willing to add the missed flip PDB entry. I see there no problem. There might be a compatibility layer for GIMP-1.2 but the GIMP-2.0 API is different and I don't think backwards compatibility is our goal. > > 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. > > It is up to the responsible maintainer, IMHO, to make changes compile in > an specific application. I can imagine that something changed in the GIMP > specific part will need some overwork by me for CinePaint or filmgimp (as > long as I need the old gui). So why should the code be shared then? If it needs manual interaction, it will be a lot easier to merge changes betwenn two separate files than to keep two versions in the same file consistent. I am very serious about this. > > 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. > > I work now over one year on this plug-in. The point for me is they > diverged as I needed to fix things and added new capabilities. Many > variable names changed. So it is harder to jump from one plug-in to > the other. I did the big change with the CinePaint plug-in in order > to adapt Nick Lamb s big overhaul. It took me much time after the > merge to get the thing working again. Now there are many new things > coming from my side. Equal who does this work GIMPs maintainer or > I, this will be much wasted time. What I offer is to set up the > base of an potential, maintainable, mostly common plug-in, with > further need by me to make things more clear. I agree that it makes sense to make the code for the two plug-ins more common since it will make it easier to merge changes between the two but I am not going to accept any ifdef's in GIMP CVS that aren't strictly necessary for the GIMP plug-in alone. Sven
