Currently, plugin-path-utils is not included in core-plugins. Is this intentional?
If so, I will add the information to the docs for the hem, join, offset, and sa macros, and I will add plugin-path-utils to the list of plugins loaded by the <Example> component to allow the macros to work in the dev docs examples.
However, if this is a mistake and plugin-path-utils actually should be in core-plugins, I’ll work on making the changes to core-plugins.
Yes, this was intentionally and discussed with Joost, he wanted to keep it out of the core plugins at least for some time until it is matured enough or something like that.
I feel like core-plugins is the natural home for a plugin like path-utils.
As Jonathan points out, I advocated for an incubation period before landing the changes in core. Note that I hold Jonathan and his contributions in the highest regard, but I’ve been burned before by prioritizing being kind/welcoming to contributors over moving cautiously.
So sometimes I will press the pause button, and the closer one gets to core, the higher the chance that will happen.
That being said, I think the time has come to move forward with this. So I propose that I’ll prepare a v4.1 release this weekend that will bring path-utils into core(-plugins).
That is assuming that @jonathan_haas is onboard with such a plan.
If so, we will already do so in the develop branch so that @Benjamin_F is not blocked from doing that oh so valuable documentation work 
I actually think that moving that plug-in to the core-plugins at this point is probably not a good idea as no design at the moment uses it.
The designs like Sabrina, Paul and others that use these macros and that I have in the pipeline are not fully ready. (Sabrina sort of is, but I still want to go over the documentation and provide some more photos.)
So I would wait with that until some designs actually use it, or until at least someone has reviewed the code properly and maybe tried to port their own design to the new macros.
That said, there should be no danger adding the design to the core-plugins. It’s just that nothing substantially has changed since we said we would wait.
My bad, I somehow had it in my head that it was already used.
@Benjamin_F let’s go and at it to the example design as you suggested
I know this is an old thread, but I’m just getting into creating/updating designs. I think the macro for ‘sa’ is far better than using path.offset that cuts off the corners. My students using the patterns are always confused by the notches and have trouble lining up the fabric when the corners are cut off. Is there a reason we’re not using the macro for ‘sa’ everywhere instead of path.offset? I’d be glad to update some patterns to use it/test it, especially from the ones I use frequently.
Example:
Toni uses the macro ‘sa’ and the corners are not cut off from the seam allowance.
Teagan uses path.offset and the corners are cut off from the seam allowance.
This is answered indirectly by the FAQ:
Why are seam allowances tapered?
Why are seam allowances not included by default?
Even the tapered seam allowances are computationally intensive. Making them come to a point is more complicated, so would require even longer. So far, we’ve mostly chosen not to do that - toni seems to be an exception.
Also from the FAQ: you don’t have to cut your pattern pieces (paper or fabric) exactly like this; it’s fine to extend the lines to form a corner before cutting.
@dr.jam.jenkins Since these are students, can you perhaps explain them the reasoning behind this? It seems to me that once they understand that, it wouldn’t be confusing?
Extending the SA is perfectly fine when you’re in the I made a tea towel phase of your sewing journey (easy, all straight corners).
But when you start tackling more ambitious projects, corners won’t always be straight, and extending the SA makes it harder to line up the pattern pieces correctly on non-90-degree corners.
I quickly drew an example by hand in Inkscape to illustrate this problem:
In a situation like this, students who are thought to line up the edges are going to get it wrong.
Now compare to how FreeSewing does it:
A FreeSewing pattern, in this exact same situation, caries extra info. The corner of the chamfer shows exactly where the offset of the seamline ends, and that allows you to lined up the seams correctly in all circumstances.
I’m sure you can explain this to them better than I can, but my point is that this is a feature, not a bug 
To push on Joost answer, I find myself putting tapered corners on my self draft paper patterns to be able to align easily the pieces
This is a good argument. Maybe it would be a good idea to add an option to Toni and some other design to select the corner style. The sa macro supports both.
