On 16 Dec 2002 12:33:39 +0100, Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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. [...]

Well, this is more or less what I meant when I wrote the statements
above.  I knew that the old Gimp16 (Film Gimp) core would not be
merged into the current GIMP because the work had already started on
GEGL.  The "merge" that I had in mind would have involved the
migration of the Film Gimp frame manager and film-specific plug-ins to
the new GIMP core based on GEGL.  And as I wrote above, this did not
mean that any project would cease to exist.

But as I have already explained in a previous message, the exact plans
for Film Gimp and GEGL were not discussed on the mailing list.  They
were mentioned by non-developers, but not by those working on GEGL and
Film Gimp (except for the mentions on the film.gimp.org home page in
2000).  So I would have to check with Calvin Williamson or Caroline
Dahllof and ask them what they had in mind for Film Gimp and the
film-specific code and plug-ins when they started working on GEGL.
But I doubt that they intended to drop all film-specific stuff once
GEGL and GIMP 2.x would be ready, so they probably planned some kind
of merge later.

> 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.

In the first message that I posted to the filmgimp mailing list, I saw
a great opportunity for Film Gimp to get closer to the current code
base when I noticed that one of the top goals for Film Gimp was "Bring
the codebase up from 1.0.4 to rendezvous with Gimp 1.2.3".  I
suggested to aim for 1.3.x instead of 1.2.3, because 1.2.3 is already
a bit old and 1.3.x has a much cleaner code (more object-oriented,
cleaner separation between user inteface and core, etc.) and has
better support for multiple platforms thanks to the new GTK 2.0.

Unfortunately, the result of this proposal and the discussion that
followed was that the goal of bringing Film Gimp closer to GIMP was
removed from the Film Gimp home page and some rather negative
statements about the GIMP were posted on the public web site and on
the mailing lists.  This is exactly the opposite of what I was hoping
for and I feel rather bad about this although I do not know how this
mess could have been avoided.  I am still hoping, though...  There
would be so much to gain for the Film Gimp users and developers by
porting it to GTK+ 2.0 and aligning its core to GIMP 1.3.x or by
aiming directly for GEGL and GIMP 2.x.

-RaphaŽl
_______________________________________________
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Reply via email to