Re: [Gimp-developer] Testers requested for our new Mac OS X DMG release!,

[scl <scl gplus gmail com>]

> On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 5:16 AM, Alexandre Prokoudine
> <alexandre prokoudine gmail com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 12:19 PM, scl wrote:
> >
> > > How about mentioning the patched and extended builds of other eager
> > > contributors like Partha and skl or even Gimp Paint Studio and
> > > CinePaint in a separate fork section of the Download page?
> >
> > The general agreement in the team is that we don't feel comfortable
> > promoting builds whose packagers do not provide information about
> > changes they introduced (if any). To make this more transparent for
> > the community, we are preparing a document on packaging requirements
> > that we'd like (but don't demand) GIMP packagers to meet.


On  28.12.2015 at 2:13 PM Partha Bagchi wrote:
> While I am not against your policy, this is first I am hearing about
> this agreement. Of course this may have been a verbal agreement within
> the team.

There was also a similar agreement at the LGM 2014, see
http://wiki.gimp.org/wiki/LGM2014Minutes#Malicious_and_reputation-damaging_installers_and_apps, 
3):

"3) How do we deal with GIMP builds that come with additional plug-ins, 
such as Simone Karin Lehmann’s or Partha Bagchi’s build?

Agreement to 3) 3rd party plug-ins and improvements to OS-integration 
(OS X, Windows, etc.) are ok. ? Shall they become part of the official 
build? Changing GIMP’s designed behaviour, like modifications to the 
Save-Export-behaviour must not become part of the official GIMP builds."

Neither your nor skl's builds are considered as malware. The
question came up when we discussed public GIMP builds with 
modifications. I hope this helps a bit.

Greetings

Sven