Sven Neumann wrote:
> I am not going to allow the source tree
> to be clobbered with more stuff simply because we are too lazy to add
> some simple notes to our web-site and FTP server. In the long run we
> will want to split GIMP into even more packages.
On another note, I'm not sure this is a desirable goal. splitting
stuff off feels an awful lot like putting it out to pasture. The
goal of just having the core application, with no plug-ins, no
image data structures, no scripts, and a minimum number of brushes,
patterns and gradients doesn't seem to be the direction that
people want to see the GIMP taking, from what I can tell.
People would like more brushes, more patterns, more gradients, with
the ability to delete the ones they don't use/like, and more
scripts/plug-ins with a way to organise the menus according to
the ones they use most often.
I know that you believe that we should work on the core
application and a few plug-ins, and leave most of the plug-in
development to 3rd party plug-in maintainers, I'm not sure I
agree. I think that we should be almost promiscuous in what we
accept into CVS, but equally vicious in removing things from CVS
when they become unmaintaned. I think that most people don't want
to have to install several packages, they want to install the
GIMP, and automatically get plug-ins like gap, refocus, and even
Note that I'm not saying that all this should happen for 2.2, but
I am speaking to the general goal of a lean, mean GIMPing machine
versus an application which comes with everything including the
kitchen sink, which you can modify to your own usage patterns,
buut which has sufficiently sane defaults as to not have a huge
complicated menu structure at the same time.
I don't really have ideas how to achieve that goal, but I'm a
little worried about the desire to remove lots of stuff from the
main GIMP CVS - this will be seen by the greater public as
removing features from the GIMP.
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gimp-developer mailing list