On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 16:38:55 -0800, Daniel Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > More details have come forward about the Mark Shuttleworth offer. Mark > Shuttleworth made up his mind and decided to fund myself and Calvin to > work on GEGL and GIMP/GEGL integration. Until today, I didn't have any > specific details on the offer.
You are bringing very good news here. Congratulations! > The final thing I want to do here is to seek out what people think about > putting a "sponsors" section on the new webpage, and devoting some space > to thank Mark Shuttleworth for this (and hell, our past sponsers too). Do you think that it should be on developers.gimp.org, or www.gimp.org? Maybe both? Anyway, I think that it would be nice to mention our sponsors somewhere. Maybe this should be discussed on the gimp-web list? > [...] The ones I really need to run past everyone are > 3, 4, 5, and 6 as those involve core gimp and I need to make sure that I > am not going to be working on anything that would be outright rejected > by the gimp developers. 1 and 2 are gegl territory, and I know I'll > accept that work :-) Most of the milestones seem reasonable, but I have some questions about how the GIMP integration would take place, especially regarding the plug-ins. Many of the current plug-ins are making more or less the same assuptions as the core regarding the bit depth of the images, etc. There is a lot of code to be re-written in the plug-ins and I expect them to be broken as soon as the format of the tiles is changed. I also expect that it would be difficult to fix them before some parts of the core become more stable. I suppose that you did not include the plug-ins in your activity planning because that would be too much work for a single programmer (but maybe I am underestimating you? ;-)) So I am wondering how we will be able to coordinate the work and update the plug-ins. Will there be a phase during which there would be a call for volunteers for updating all of the plug-ins once the new interfaces to the core become more mature? Or would it be possible to provide some kind of backwards compatibility so that the transition could be spread over a longer period, with some plug-ins using the new API while some others would still use the old one through a compatibility layer? Anyway, I am glad to see that the offer for sponsoring is becoming more concrete. -Raphaël _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
