I was wondering about it as I was feeding myself with blender builds published on that site for at least 4 month and it is such a fervid place. Krita probably doesn't have a community as vast as blender does, but may step in and maybe get more collaborators and enthusiasts? Who knows?

Well, we don't really have the resources to create all those builds, and the windows build is very, very experimental still, so right now, I'm not sure what would be best.

Maybe it's not a matter of resources, there is a certain number of people on graphicall that are doing mainly packaging and most builds are pretty much the same. Every one of them introduces some set of experimental features, I normally have at least 3 blenders on desktop, and I'm not a chef

People that are willing to make experimental packages could be a great resource as they relieve this burden from the developers and bring innovative features to the community every time is possible before a stable version.

I heard that GIMP developers tend to be quite snobbish towards the idea of publishing on graphicall.

Hope this could bring more collaborators to the Krita's project once the time will come to open towards this possibility.

There is a big difference to Blender. Blender is a practically self-contained package while Krita has lots of dependencies to other stuff. So I doubt that we could provide packages like graphicall does.

Well, if someone else wants to provide packages, I'm fine with that. There are two gotchas that I can see: builds of krita that include or exclude stuff from our release/master branch will be hard to support for us, and windows builds are always tricky. Users need to be able to depend on malware-free builds.

Well, one installing experimental builds always confronts the risk of having crashes. It is just a matter of fact of getting the wok done maybe with pain and stress or not doing it at all.

A part from experimental content there are also many packages that just provide bugfixes that haven't made their way yet to the official release.

Just a last observation, most of the times packagers deal with problems reported by the users and try to fix them if they are related to the build, probably you would not end up with much users bothering about problems in the experimental builds.

I shall not speak as mine are just impressions. But I'd like to make sense of them

I don't think it's a problem if the build would contain stuff that's not in master. The problem I see is that Krita is too hard to build on Windows and to hard to install on Linux to make such builds available.

Is it related to KDE?

I don't completely agree with Sven here... Setting up the build on windows is hardish, but after that, updating and packaging is a matter of six or seven commands. On OSX, it seems it's not that difficult. On Linux, I'm sure that standalone packages can be created, but they'll be big and it'll be a bit tricky. But I'll be around to help anyone who wants to try.

Of course it's possible, but the size would still be gigantic. Current standalone packages like Blender or QtCreator are much smaller.