Re: [Gimp-web] [Gimp-developer] Gitlab as a replacement for registry.gimp.org

[Jehan Pagès <jehan marmottard gmail com>]

Hello,

On Sat, Apr 2, 2016 at 12:18 AM, Andrew Toskin <andrew tosk in> 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