Hi, On Mon, 2006-10-09 at 19:55 -0400, Kevin Cozens wrote: > You suggested moving Script-Fu (and pygimp) in to a module outside of the GIMP > source tree in 2004. Well, that was two years ago and lots of people have expressed their opinion that splitting up the gimp tree into stand-alone modules would be a bad idea. Let's say that I was convinced... > I would suggest using the Tiny-Fu scripts as they are known to work with > Tiny-Fu. The Script-Fu ones may work but I haven't tested them recently and > don't particularly feel like going through the process of testing 95+ scripts > (again). Fine with me. But I was assuming that the scripts are identical anyway. If you prefer to use the ones in Tiny-Fu, you will have to make sure that you incorporate the recent changes, in particular the blurb review. > I will work on creating a TinyScheme based Script-Fu. I will want a clear "go > ahead" from the core developer(s) before a TinyScheme based version of > Script-Fu gets commited to the main GIMP source tree. Once a merge takes place > we will be commited to using "Tiny-Fu" due mainly to the number of changes and > the hassle it would be to back out all the changes. Well, Tiny-Fu basically won't exist any longer then. Script-Fu will just have gotten a major overhaul and a new Scheme interpreter. Given that this change works well, and I am pretty sure that it will, we will not want to go back. I would like to review the patch before it gets committed. But in general I vote for doing the change. If anyone else has strong objections for doing this switch now, please speak up. Sven _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
