On Mon, 27 Mar 2006, Marc Lehmann wrote:

> Subject: Re: [Gimp-developer] [iso-8859-1] D?j[iso-8859-1] ? vu?
>     (Re[iso-8859-1] : Why be cryptic? 'Xtns' should be name 'Extensions')
> On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 08:18:22PM +0100, Alan Horkan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:
> > > Personally, I am pretty much tired of all the UI/change name/cosmetic
> > > games,
> >
> > Could more be done to allow these cosmetic changes without forks being
> > necessary?
> Of course. There have been plans to separate ui from graphics core since
> ancient times now, which would allow such changes in a relatively clean way.
> And lots has been done, too.
> But!
> Somebody has to do the work!
> There is no way around that.
> And this is what killed such efforts in the past.
> > without needing a recompile and this was a great idea but Sven point
> > blank rejected even the possibility of accepting patches which might
> > rebranding easier.
> I must admit that I don't know of these incidents, but I do trust that Sven
> would not reject a patch unless its incorrect and a better way exists.

Sven explained his position on branding here and why patches to make
the name easier to change would not be accepted:

The GIMP name is mentioned in a lot of error messages, other places where
it is definately not necessary, but if I thought a patch would be
considered I would start on a patch for that.  (I've been reviewing the
en_GB.po already recently looking at other string changes.)


Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to