On Fri, 2007-02-16 at 09:33 +0100, gg@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > One thing that concerns me with Gimp development in general and of which > these changes are a good example is lack of concern for backwards > compatability. > > A lot of people have contributed in one way or another to gimp over time > but that does not mean they will always be here or be able to provide > never ending support for things , like a plugin, they have contributed. > There was a powerful suite of plugins written by a German maths doctor > that got dropped a long time back. It seemed, having done the job once , > he did not have the time to redo it when gimp decided to change the > interface. What interface change do you mean? The plug-in API and ABI are supposed to be backward-compatible. Any incompatibility you find is a bug that will be fixed. > There is also problems with the way changes broke the interface with > gimp=print, amongst other things. Gimp 2.3 is still seriously unfinished > as far as the print dlg goes yet it seems I still cannot use gutenprint > with 2.2 . Net result I can't use my printer with gimp. As I understood > that rather contentious exchanges between Sven and the gp lead dev this > was because there were incompatible changes in the API. (If there's a way > around this please correct me, and please do not take this as an attempt > to reopen the heated arguements this issue invovled. The issue is that of > continuity vs breakage). What keeps you from using the gutenprint gimp plug-in? All stable gimp versions have a working print plug-in. The developer version being broken in some areas is something you just have to live with. > There are quite obvious issues with running everything in the same name > space. Surely the best way to address this issue would be to run a > separate instance of the interpreter rather than put new conditions on the > scripts that breaks a number of the ones in the registry and very likely > at lot that are not. This would seem to be a work around for a flaw in the > way gimp handles this. The script-fu incompatibility issues you raise are due to the fact that we switched from the totally antique and unmaintained SIOD to something sane. I hope you don't want to get back to SIOD and re-introduce all its shortcomings. > Since this is one of your goals anyway , wouldn't it save a lot of effort > all round and preserve a number of plugins that may not get ported across, > if this could be brought forward? Are you talking about plug-ins or script-fu scripts? ciao, --mitch _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
