On 2002-04-11 at 1255.35 +0200, David Neary typed this mail:

...they just stop leaving a forwarding e-mail address :)

Following on from the other plug-in discussion, can anyone tell me what the procedure is for updating old plug-ins which were added by someone who is now (apparrently) unreachable? There were a couple of older plug-ins I used recently which needed a little bit of updating to get them to work with 1.2, and I'd like to update the originals on registry.gimp.org, but the author's contact details seem to be dead.

heya Mr. Neary ....

i have been wanting to collect all of the working plug-ins and make them available on my site. only plug-ins that are not already included with GIMP, however.

if you have a lot of updated plug-ins, it should be no problem to give you a password so you can move the plug-ins to my site directly.

updating old plug-ins is cool! which ones did you work on?

carol

Hi,

Carol Spears writes:

i have been wanting to collect all of the working plug-ins and make them available on my site. only plug-ins that are not already included with GIMP, however.

if you have a lot of updated plug-ins, it should be no problem to give you a password so you can move the plug-ins to my site directly.

updating old plug-ins is definitely a good idea. Storing them offsite of registry.gimp.org is a bad idea however. Why can't we at least try to keep things in one place? Why is everybody reinventing the wheel all the time instead of improving existing infrastructure?

Salut, Sven

On Thu, 11 Apr 2002 10:55:58 -0400, "Carol Spears" wrote:

On 2002-04-11 at 1255.35 +0200, David Neary typed this mail:

Following on from the other plug-in discussion, can anyone tell me what the procedure is for updating old plug-ins which were added by someone who is now (apparrently) unreachable? [...]

updating old plug-ins is cool! which ones did you work on?

I suppose that you can find the answer to that question by reading the last messages in the thread "Re: Warning! New user!" posted in the newsgroup comp.graphics.apps.gimp. DigitalSignature was a 1.0 plug-in that could not be compiled with 1.2, but there are many other plug-ins that have not been updated.

The easiest way to store the updated plug-in in the registry seems to be to create a new entry "DigitalSignature2". But this is not very elegant. It would be nice to have a generic solution that would allow another author to store a new plug-in using the same name as an existing plug-in, if the new plug-in is for a different version of the GIMP (and if the old author cannot be contacted anymore, although the registry cannot check that by itself).

We should think about a good solution to this problem before 1.4 is released, because there will be even more problems due to the transition to GTK+ 2.0...

Of course, there is still the open issue of designing a good plug-in management system from GIMP 2.0, but that's less urgent.

-Raphaël

On 2002-04-11 at 1718.41 +0200, Sven Neumann typed this mail:

Hi,

Carol Spears writes:

i have been wanting to collect all of the working plug-ins and make them available on my site. only plug-ins that are not already included with GIMP, however.

if you have a lot of updated plug-ins, it should be no problem to give you a password so you can move the plug-ins to my site directly.

updating old plug-ins is definitely a good idea. Storing them offsite of registry.gimp.org is a bad idea however. Why can't we at least try to keep things in one place? Why is everybody reinventing the wheel all the time instead of improving existing infrastructure?

i have been frustrated using the registry.

several times, i downloaded and installed a plug-in, only to find it was already included with GIMP.

lately, i would like to use snarf to get the plug-in i would like (since mozilla save seems to save something different than snarf gets) but the url to the plug-ins are not obvious.

what could be so bad with a place to collect the updated plug-ins?

carol

Hi,

Carol Spears writes:

i have been frustrated using the registry.

several times, i downloaded and installed a plug-in, only to find it was already included with GIMP.

lately, i would like to use snarf to get the plug-in i would like (since mozilla save seems to save something different than snarf gets) but the url to the plug-ins are not obvious.

well, then the registry needs to be improved. Did you contact Ingo and offered your help?

what could be so bad with a place to collect the updated plug-ins?

nothing. The bad thing is to have multiple places to look for plug-ins.

Salut, Sven

On 2002-04-11 at 1741.53 +0200, Sven Neumann typed this mail:

Hi,

well, then the registry needs to be improved. Did you contact Ingo and offered your help?

what could be so bad with a place to collect the updated plug-ins?

nothing. The bad thing is to have multiple places to look for plug-ins.

i seem to remember from the discussion of the registry from this list (way back when) that the registry works like it does and will not be changed.

the last time i tried to discuss the registry with the eh, registry owner, he pretty much told me to talk to you.

my site is getting more and more traffic. i have a good skeleton of a passwd system. i have tried to make my site more user oriented. and i will always be willing to talk to a user about plug-ins.

so far, i have been pretty good about not having things on my site that are already included in the GIMP. from a user point of view, this is a frustrating thing about www.gimp.org and registry.gimp.org.

the nice thing about my site, is that i can meet my needs and not have to talk it over with you or Ingo. not that talking to you or Ingo is bad or frustrating ....

carol

On 2002-04-11 at 1735.06 +0200, David Neary typed this mail:

"work" is overstating it :) In fact I just found out about ENABLE_GIMP_COMPAT_CRUFT, and essentially all I did was to make a couple (psd_save and DigitalSignature) of 1.0 plug-ins compile without it. It's basically search-and-replace. But it's done :)

cool, while these guys discuss how to offer these plug-ins, can i have them?

carol

On Thu, 11 Apr 2002 12:01:03 -0400, "Carol Spears" wrote:

On 2002-04-11 at 1741.53 +0200, Sven Neumann typed this mail:

nothing. The bad thing is to have multiple places to look for plug-ins.

i seem to remember from the discussion of the registry from this list (way back when) that the registry works like it does and will not be changed.

I hope that it will be updated someday... Besides the problems described in the previous mails (how to update a plug-in when the original author is gone), it would be very nice to add a field that would tell if a plug-in has been included in the standard distribution of the GIMP (and if yes, in which versions) or in the Windows version, which includes some additional plug-ins.

the last time i tried to discuss the registry with the eh, registry owner, he pretty much told me to talk to you.

my site is getting more and more traffic. i have a good skeleton of a passwd system. i have tried to make my site more user oriented. and i will always be willing to talk to a user about plug-ins.

so far, i have been pretty good about not having things on my site that are already included in the GIMP. from a user point of view, this is a frustrating thing about www.gimp.org and registry.gimp.org.

Then by all means, DO REPORT THIS AS A BUG IN BUGZILLA! Sorry for shouting, but if there is something wrong on www.gimp.org, this should be reported as a bug. I will not be able to re-design the complete site (AFAIK, you should be working on that ;-)) but I do check Bugzilla frequently and I try to fix all the bugs related to www.gimp.org as soon as possible. So if there is a page that contains outdated or incorrect information, please submit a bug report and I will take care of it. I am trying to keep the site alive until a new www.gimp.org can be put online... I hope that it will be ready soon.

the nice thing about my site, is that i can meet my needs and not have to talk it over with you or Ingo. not that talking to you or Ingo is bad or frustrating ....

Yes, this is of course very good from your point of view, but what about the users? If the information about the GIMP is scattered on many sites, that will not help anybody. If your site can be a good replacement for www.gimp.org, then let's kill the old site, change the hostname and make sure that the new www.gimp.org can be the new reference site for the GIMP. But if this is not the case, then I am not sure that it helps the users in the long run.

If everybody is complaining that the old site is bad but is not doing anything to improve it, then we will not go very far...

-Raphaël

On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 06:34:02PM +0200, Raphaël Quinet wrote:

so far, i have been pretty good about not having things on my site that are already included in the GIMP. from a user point of view, this is a frustrating thing about www.gimp.org and registry.gimp.org.

Then by all means, DO REPORT THIS AS A BUG IN BUGZILLA! Sorry for shouting, but if there is something wrong on www.gimp.org, this should be reported as a bug. I will not be able to re-design the complete site (AFAIK, you should be working on that ;-)) but I do check Bugzilla frequently and I try to fix all the bugs related to www.gimp.org as soon as possible. So if there is a page that contains outdated or incorrect information, please submit a bug report and I will take care of it.

What about a little disclaimer at the bottom of each page saying something along "Outdated links? Incorrect information? Typos? Please _submit a bug_. Thank you."

Bye, Tino.

On 2002-04-11 at 1834.02 +0200, Rapha?l Quinet typed this mail:

On Thu, 11 Apr 2002 12:01:03 -0400, "Carol Spears" wrote:

On 2002-04-11 at 1741.53 +0200, Sven Neumann typed this mail:

nothing. The bad thing is to have multiple places to look for plug-ins.

i seem to remember from the discussion of the registry from this list (way back when) that the registry works like it does and will not be changed.

I hope that it will be updated someday... Besides the problems described in the previous mails (how to update a plug-in when the original author is gone), it would be very nice to add a field that would tell if a plug-in has been included in the standard distribution of the GIMP (and if yes, in which versions) or in the Windows version, which includes some additional plug-ins.

the last time i tried to discuss the registry with the eh, registry owner, he pretty much told me to talk to you.

my site is getting more and more traffic. i have a good skeleton of a passwd system. i have tried to make my site more user oriented. and i will always be willing to talk to a user about plug-ins.

so far, i have been pretty good about not having things on my site that are already included in the GIMP. from a user point of view, this is a frustrating thing about www.gimp.org and registry.gimp.org.

Then by all means, DO REPORT THIS AS A BUG IN BUGZILLA! Sorry for shouting, but if there is something wrong on www.gimp.org, this should be reported as a bug.

the very moment i think i can articulate my ideas well enough to file bugreports, i will do it. please do not hold your breath though ....

I will not be able to re-design the complete site (AFAIK, you should be working on that ;-)) but I do check Bugzilla frequently and I try to fix all the bugs related to www.gimp.org as soon as possible. So if there is a page that contains outdated or incorrect information, please submit a bug report and I will take care of it. I am trying to keep the site alive until a new www.gimp.org can be put online... I hope that it will be ready soon.

i spent many many fruitless hours trying to get an xsl to obey a css file. i am to the point where i am going to type the samples in from my books to prove once and for all that it doesn't work. meanwhile, i am continueing with what i thought my job would be. and that is to gather useful and concise GIMP information, and beg for tutorials and how-tos from anyone i can ....

the people who are in charge of bugzilla are very very mindful of what is going on there. thank you very very much!! all the more reason to be mindful of what goes there ....

Yes, this is of course very good from your point of view, but what about the users? If the information about the GIMP is scattered on many sites, that will not help anybody. If your site can be a good replacement for www.gimp.org, then let's kill the old site, change the hostname and make sure that the new www.gimp.org can be the new reference site for the GIMP. But if this is not the case, then I am not sure that it helps the users in the long run.

If everybody is complaining that the old site is bad but is not doing anything to improve it, then we will not go very far...

sorry, i love the old site. this is the first time i have ever complained about it. and i didn't mean to.

when i asked last summer about updating the current site, i was given a very short list of names of people who could do that. since no one on that short list would talk to me, i started gathering things for the new site. i realize that things have changed since then, but it is hard to stop what i was doing.

a few months ago, someone was bored and willing to change some things around at the current site. i was not ready at this time. since then i have gathered brushes and other resources that are not included with GIMP already and put them on my site. i am almost ready with brushes. give me a chance to go over my collection one more time and imo the whole lot of brushes that are there can be replaced with my collection.

perhaps when bex comes back, she can file a few bug reports for me ....

carol