[crossfire] Arch repository: layered art files?

[Mark Wedel]

Nicolas Weeger wrote:

>> The Gimp's xcf is a good contender. However, it is also true that there are
>> many artists who are using Photoshop, Painter, or Open Canvas; so I'd
>> suggest not defining any specific file format, and let each artist use
>> whatever he prefers.
> 
> Agreed, many formats can be used. Of course open formats should be encouraged 
> when possible :)

  I'm a bit less sure if having a bunch of formats sitting about in the arch 
directory would be a good thing.  A concern I have is of formats which no one 
can easily use, and there is not certainty if anyone in fact is still using 
those images (hypothetical case here is someone adds some new images in some 
image format, and then disappears from the crossfire world.  Two years later 
ability for anyone else to read the originals may be gone, and not certain if 
anyone would care if they were removed).

  Having everyone use a same format may not work.  But at the same time, if the 
format being used is obscure enough that only that single developer uses it, 
having that source checked in really gains nothing.

  As a compromise, I'd suggest that in principal, any format may be allowed, but 
has to be approved/discussed on a case by case basis.  For fairly popular 
formats or programs, that should pretty much be a rubber stamp.  But if someone 
pops up and wants to add a format no one has ever heard of, answer is probably no.

  Last note would be licensing - I don't know if it would be an issue or not, 
but crossfire is GPL, and thus all files so checked in must be comformant with 
that license.  If adobe or other software has restrictions on what can be done 
with the data files, etc, that would be another reason to disallow software (an 
example could be the file format itself is patented, and thus freely 
redistributing files in that format requires some licensing or permission)

> 
>> Maybe it would be nice to put those elsewhere than in the arch subdir, so
>> that artists who wouldn't require the rest can only download those, and
>> non-artists can grab the arches without the (possibly heavy) graphic
>> "source" files that would be of no use for them ?
> 
> Agreed on that too, maybe put in a arch_src tree duplicating the arch 
> structure?

  I guess it depends on the size of the source files.  In practical terms, 
unless they change often, there is just a one time cost to download them in the 
initial checkout.

  For the official arch distributions, they should likely be stripped out.

  Before having them in a different area (which is likely to cause headaches 
folks actually using those images), I'd be more interested in seeing size and 
the impact that has.

  My concern here is syncrhonization and/or conflicting updates.
  For example, developers make gimp image of monsters.  .xcf file is in 
arch_src/monster/..., and artist wrote out the png in the expected place.
  Someone at a later point makes some adjustments, perhaps quite minor, to the 
monster.  Maybe not aware, they edit the png file directly.
  Now if someones goes back to the xcf and makes a new png, those previous 
changes are lost.

  I think this is much more likely to happen if the source files are in some 
other repostory.  If I see monster.111.png and monster.111.xcf in the same 
directory, that should be clue enough.

  But this also leads into another question - how do we handle cases where the 
source file is in a format that the end user doesn't have?  Lets suppose in that 
case above, instead of the source being gimp, it is adobe photoshop.  I don't 
have any way to edit that.  But I want to make a change to that monster.  Do I 
just modify the png?

  I'd also note that I could certainly see with layering, etc, that there may be 
some number of source image files that do not have any clear association with an 
archetype (generic images for example).  In that case, they should probably also 
go in some directory in the arch tree just for that purpose - misc_images or 
something.