Hi, "Robin Rowe" <rower@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Pardon me if I misspoke based on recollection. I have now referred > back to your post of December 2, 2002. You said: > > [ We often apply patches from people that don't have CVS commit > access. I'd like to see the names of the patch authors in the list of > contributors but it's not trivial to extract them from the ChangeLog > entries. ] Not trivial meant that it will be difficult to write a script that does this automatically. It doesn't mean that it can't be done for a particular piece of code. > For years you have been saying that something that makes GIMP great > is that you have taken the code through a major clean-up process. I > wanted to understand how GIMP does refactoring without being held > back by GPL/LGPL licensing barriers. However, you say above you > rarely do refactoring. Please have a look at the core and compare it with the codebase four years ago. You will notice that the GIMP core has been refactored into a number of subsystems with clear dependencies. > Why do you suppose little GIMP application code has migrated into > libraries? Is refactoring unimportant? Refactoring doesn't necessarily mean moving code from the core to our libraries. Moving code to libgimp* only makes sense if it provides functionality that is useful for plug-ins. That isn't very often the case. Most of the time it's better to expose the functionality to the plug-ins through the PDB. Sven
