RaphaXl Quinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is wrong. The plan was that Film Gimp and GIMP would merge
> around version 2.0 (you can check the gimp-dev mailing list archives
> from 2000 for some statements about that). This did not mean that any
> project would cease to exist, but rather that one tool (or at least a
> common codebase) would support the features that are necessary for
> both projects.
actually there was no plan to merge the two projects. Instead the idea
was to provide a framework for image manipulation that fits the needs
of both still image and movie editors. The basis for this framework is
supposed to be GEGL and the Pupus rendering pipeline. A rich set of
widgets to build a user interface from should be provided as well as a
plug-in architecture and other useful things. Several applications
could be built on top of this architecture. Perhaps there would be one
large customizable GIMP application, but I can imagine that some
people might prefer to create a more specialized user interface and
call it Film GIMP, Video GIMP or Icon GIMP. There's nothing wrong with
having different applications for different needs.
This idea is however very different from the approach taken by the
current Film GIMP developers which seem to prefer to work on a
stone-old code base. I see a lot of effort wasted here and will
continue to discourage people to join this effort. The Film GIMP
developers shouldn't take this as a personal offense; it's their
choice and I will certainly not dictate what other people should do.
It's just my very own personal opinion that we could be so much
further towards GIMP-2.0 if more people would share this vision.
Gimp-developer mailing list