[EMAIL PROTECTED] (2002-11-27 at 2219.52 -0500):
> From what I heard, Gimp originally declined a merge with the
> hollywood branch, which I see as a serious mistake. Gimp isnt
> photoshop, and it isnt any other program that people compare it
> to. Gimp is more than all of them. And thanks to FG, Gimp can become
> much more than it is now. But I dont see this happening unless
> people realize having multiple (uncompatible) programs like this is
> extremly bad.

And from what I heard, the decision was the following path:

- 1.3-1.4: code clean ups and port to gtk+2, add new features that
drop in without any problem. Port to other plataforms officially. Make
the GUI a bit more logical, reuse keycombos, make common previews. All
this should make the code suitable for the future, based in objects
and so on. It should be something like all previous versions, but
nicer in the surface and in the engine, but not a complete rework.

- 1.x-2.0: support colour spaces and bit depths, macro recording or
anything that done for 1.4 would mean a lot of job. This would use
GEGL, which should be ready at that moment, or at least the core part
should. Gimp would become an user of the lib, an interface, maybe a
full video processor tool, based in scripting (after all, videos are
ordered lists of images, and basic video processing has already been
done with perl). It could be seen as a complete rework, or maybe not,
I hope all the GUI can be plugged on top of the new system.

The "merge" is 2.0, or more probably, there is no merge per se, cos
future code should do it from the lower levels. Thus merging with 1.0
code that would be deprecated anyway would mean more caos than real
help. As anyone can guess, working GEGL can be done now, while the
main clean up is done in the 1.3.

The status of Film Gimp for me was "some people use it, they got
something solved, and as program it is a nice experiment, next time we
will do it in core, not as patch". If some other people need or what
something else / more, fine, but no other of the rest have to follow.

> issues. And a GEGL enabled Gimp is so far off, it will be years
> before I see it done. As a heavy user and supporter of Gimp, I
> deserve the occational feature request, and my request is that
> higher precision rendering is added asap.

And coders deserve the right to have a live, I guess. That is a
natural characteristic of free time projects: they evolve as the
people's mood and time allows. :]

If there is market, I suppose people could start a business about
coding under contract and make everything go faster or port or
wathever. If there is none, there is only accepting more strong
limitations and go on as they allow.

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to