> I don't think it is a good idea to change the project name.
So you kind of answered to yourself...
> It is a good sign that the gimp has improved so much that people are only
> left with the name to complain about :)
I don't complain about the name.
> I think it would be a fair compromise to accept patches that make it
> easier for those who would like to configure the name.
That a non-sense claim. I think that people that get offended by
a name have deeper problems. And they should worry first about them
instead of changing everybody's minds to their way of thinking.
I answer to you, because i work on a window manager with a name
that could be considered offensive by spanish-speakers with similar
ideas to the users who claim that gimp should change its name.
But we didn't intend to offense anyone when we choosed the name,
it was just a joke. People who complained about the name understood this
when we explained it to them.
> If a project as big as Mozilla Firefox allows it name to be changed, why
> would it be an issue for the gimp?
There was another project called Firebird, so there was a good reason
to change it.
> Why require people to fork or maintain their own patchsets for the sake of
> a little extra configurability.
I wouldn't call it configurability.
David Gˇmez Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gimp-developer mailing list