Hello, On Sat, Apr 2, 2016 at 12:18 AM, Andrew Toskin <andrew@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> On 2016-04-01 13:32, Pat David wrote: >> >> Organization >> ========= >> >> Jehan suggested that each script/plugin/asset have it's own git repo. >> This would be handy, particularly if script authors did this as well (as it >> considerably eases the inclusion of external repos as submodules). >> However, akk points out that many folks don't (won't?) organize their repos >> in this way (it gets a little... unwieldy pretty quickly if you have many >> scripts). > > Whether or not we can get plugin developers to follow it, separating > scripts and plugins into different repositories seems like a good > recommendation, for a number of reasons. For plugin and script authors, > it would make managing bugs and user feedback easier. For end users, > it's also annoying to clone a large repository when you're only > interested in a small subset of its contents. If authors are really > going to lump together their plugins and scripts, we could at least > recommend that they try to only group together the things that are most > closely related. Create several smaller collections of scripts, instead > of one giant collection. Exactly. Some people like to create huge collections of scripts. G'Mic comes to mind. They will obviously continue to do so anyway. I personally prefer to install only the scripts I need (and not 100 others which would come with). Well then some scripts are closely related and it would make sense to have these together. Why not. There are many cases. In the end though, every content creator is free though. My point is not to enforce a style of plugin creation. The point was to make the equivalency: 1 repository = 1 extension. What I call "extension" here is a 1-time download item. It can be a python plugin, a GimpFu script, a collection of brushes, a theme or an icon theme, patterns, whatever which can be installed in GIMP. It can be 1 single script, as 100 scripts, or a mix of contents. Plugin developers are free to do whatever they want. They just have to know that 1 repo = 1 extension. So when a user clicks "Install", the user installs the whole extension, be it just 1 script or a whole collection of 1000 scripts. In this repo, they would have a README in the root directory, which will be used to generate the extension description. I think this is much better than trying to develop a metadata format where a plugin developer would have to organize one's plugins in a complex subdirectory structure. Of course, a plugin developer could always go the basic way: uploading an archive for new releases. I would imagine that developers who already have their own organization and their repository somewhere may prefer to keep this way. The repository proposition is only meant as a bonus for plugin developers who would not know where to host their code. We could tell them: hey, just let us host your code if you want. Which will incidentally help for integration (releases could be done by tagging a commit, etc.). Just wanted to make the idea clear. Jehan -- ZeMarmot open animation film http://film.zemarmot.net Patreon: https://patreon.com/zemarmot _______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list List address: gimp-developer-list@xxxxxxxxx List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list
