Re: [Gimp-developer] [Gimp-web] Gitlab as a replacement for


On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Michael Schumacher <schumaml gmx de> wrote:
Gesendet: Montag, 04. April 2016 um 12:03 Uhr
Von: "Jehan Pagès" <jehan marmottard gmail com>

When I read this, I understand that I am really not clear.

So no, I am not saying and have never said that we would grab
repository from "elsewhere". I know patdavid seemed to have such an
idea at some point, but I thought we made the point clear on IRC.

It looks like you went out of that IRC meeting with an different impression than I.

What I remember from the meeting:

- a repository or repositories *on* to host all of the official, curated resources
- encouraging other developers to use Git (on github, gitlab, savannah, ...) as well, and possibly add 
their repositories as submodules/subtrees
  (with technical details to be filled in by people who know about git than me)
- use as opposed to github to be able to (if the need arises, for example gitlab turning evil) 
host an instance ourselves and migrate everything there

In any cases, we should not go the road of syncing with repositories
of third-party services (neither github nor gitlab, nor whatever). I
think this is just a road to hell. With time passing and hundreds and
hundreds of plugins. And there would be no control over their
contents, and so on.

For me, this is better to just stick to tarball plugins if we cannot
host our own controlled repository service.

I am also still puzzled how the "one repository per 'script/plugin'" (we really need a better term for that 
concept) approach will be managed.

Let's call them "extensions" for the time being (since we already use
the term "plugin" and "scripts", but I don't think we use the term
"extension" yet). Anyway the point is to have a single page for a
single extension. If you want to go to the page for a Firefox
extension, you don't get a page of all the extensions made by this
particular developer (or team). You get the description for this one
extension. This is the same. One single extension gets one page (and
one single repository, and one single bug tracker, and so on). It does
not share with other extensions (same developer or not).

This is the whole conceptual point: each extension is separate.

Now I repeat: an extension can be a whole collection of scripts or
plugins. If all your scripts make sense together, and you want users
to install them all at once, that's possible. You still have one
single extension (with a single page, a single repo…), simply it has
10 or maybe why not 100 scripts inside (which themselves may register
several procedures each, as you noted earlier).

So that's simple:
- if you conceptually associate your scripts/plugins/resources like
being part of the same thing, then you have them all in a single
repository and they are distributed as a single extension.
- else if you conceptually consider these scripts/plugins/resources
like being different unrelated items (they just happen to all be made
by the same developer. Other than this, there is no reason to install
them together), they are different extensions. As a consequence, they
are in different repositories.


Maybe this is a good time to remind everyone that Wilber, our IRC bot, has the Meetbot plugin installed:

Using it more frequently would make even small, rather informal meetings with all of their action items, 
agreements and disagreements easier to record.

GPG: 96A8 B38A 728A 577D 724D 60E5 F855 53EC B36D 4CDD
gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address:    gimp-developer-list gnome org
List membership:
List archives:

ZeMarmot open animation film

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]