Manish Singh wrote:

On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 09:35:09AM +0100, Dave Neary wrote:
OK - fair enough. It's a standalone project. But we're going to use it, and need it, and from what I recall, calvin was looking for more GIMP input into what it should do. How do you propose we get that kind of communication happenning?

Not sure. Something to think about more post-2.0.

We could think about it now, and do something about it post 2.0 :) That's all I am doing is throwing ideas around.


The beneficial part was having GIMP use GTK+. Period. Having it part of the
actual source tree didn't really contribute to that benefit much at all,
since it would've gotten worked on regardless.


So having the GIMP use gegl will be beneficial to gegl :)


In any case, that is not the goal of the 2.2 release. I still believe that always stable, always releasable, with a 6 week freeze on functionality and a release for GUADEC are the technical goals of the 2.1.x series. If we start using tiny bits of gegl, then that's great.

I'm afraid I didn't follow the logic of this... how is this a counter-argument to having gegl and gimp downloads in the same directory?

You didn't propose having gegl and gimp downloads in the same directory till today. So I don't follow the logic. ;)

The post you replied to immediately before this one talked about having the tarballs together. I posted that yesterday.


I don't really mind symlinking the gegl sources into the gimp ftp dir, but
that's a fairly minor thing. Most people follow webpage links rather than
poking through an ftp site these days, and the download webpage should of
course link to gegl.

I agree.


Cheers,
Dave.

--
Dave Neary
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


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

Reply via email to