Sven,

Hi. Thanks for writing.

This is your first post to our list cinepaint-developers, and people here
may wonder who you are and why you are introducing yourself by making
demands. You haven't identified your role in GIMP and aren't mentioned in
the authors list on gimp.org (http://gimp.org/the_gimp_about.html). Just so
everyone knows, the GIMP has a different management style than CinePaint and
doesn't identify its team -- except for Yosh, the GIMP release manager. Sven
is perceived as the project manager of GIMP.

You are right that our gbr brushes are different from GIMP's. Although I
appreciate you considering it, they can't be made fully compatible with GIMP
because of bit depth. The best you could do would be to crush down to 8-bit
when opening our 16-bit brushes.

The situation is worse than you think. Not only has the brush format been
modified, the XCF format has been broken, too. Again, for higher bit depths
than GIMP supports. Our users are surprised that they can't read 8-bit GIMP
XCF files even though XCF is listed as our native format. While researching
how to make our files more compatible with GIMP, I found your for-the-record
statement that GIMP XCF is deliberately undocumented:

http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/lists/gimp-developer/2003-February/008106.html

I agree with you that our file formats are a mess, but none of this happened
on my watch. I can't answer your question who made the change to the brush
format because it predates my participation. A person who may know is Yosh,
the GIMP release manager. In any case, it seems clear that the person who
made the change would have been one of the original GIMP developers who
worked on Film Gimp. I'm unaware of any implementation docs on what they
did. By the way, where would I find your docs for the GIMP gbr format?

You are probably unaware that we have already done a quite bit of work
eliminating file collisions with GIMP. Because the original plan for the
Film Gimp branch was for it to be GIMP, the original developers didn't
anticipate any name change.

The plan is for CinePaint to move away from this undocumented and
incompatible XCF format we inherited -- and can't properly support -- to a
new XML-ish file format that will be called CPX. I am still designing that,
but have already documented the basic format. It should replace gbr too.

Cheers,

Robin
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   Hollywood, California
www.CinePaint.org   Free motion picture and still image editing software
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sven Neumann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 5:31 AM
Subject: [CinePaint-dev] GIMP brush format version 3


> Hi,
>
> yesterday someone from the GIMP developers stumpled across this page:
>
>  http://cinepaint.sourceforge.net/dev/brushes.html
>
> After examing the brushes that can be downloaded there, we found that
> GIMP can not read them although they have the .gbr extension and the
> magic file header for GIMP brushes. Actually it's even the very same
> format but version 3. But, version 3 of the GIMP brush format does not
> exist. What happened here?
>
> I don't know exactly when this change to the brush format was made nor
> who made it. I just want to state that this is an inacceptible
> procedure. If FilmGIMP or CinePaint needs a new brush format for
> whatever reasons, they are of course free to design the new format
> closely to the GIMP brush format. But it can not be that you simply
> take the GIMP brush format and increase the version number. This is
> something that only the GIMP developers can decide to do. If for some
> reason you wanted to stick with the GIMP brush format, you should have
> at least asked. We could then have decided on a format change and
> include support for the new file format version in both applications.
> >From reading your web-page I understood that CinePaint does not even
> support the GBR versions 1 and 2 that are used by The GIMP. This seems
> to indicate that you just needed a new and different format. You should
> have at least changed the magic file header then so that utilities
> such as file(1) are able to differentiate between GIMP brushes and
> CinePaint brushes.
>
> There is not much we can do to change this situation now that it has
> happened. I am not going to yell at anyone since I don't even know how
> far this change dates back. But I want you to know that we are upset
> about what happened and I ask you to assure that similar things don't
> happen in the future. File formats are crucial and we can not accept
> any incompatibilities caused by third-party developers changing our
> file formats.
>
> Well, there is one thing we can do: If someone would provide us with
> the details about the version 3 brush format, we might decide to
> include support for it in The GIMP. This would at least reduce
> confusion among our users.
>
>
> Sven
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email sponsored by: Parasoft
> Error proof Web apps, automate testing & more.
> Download & eval WebKing and get a free book.
> www.parasoft.com/bulletproofapps
> _______________________________________________
> Cinepaint-developers mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cinepaint-developers
>
>

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

Reply via email to