Dave Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>  - Scripting languages and the GIMP - work on ruby or python bindings

Another language binding would indeed be a nice project and the Python
binding could also be improved. What's Yosh's opinion on the latter?

>  - Plug-ins: Save for web for example (too small to be a project,
> but could be part of one)

IMO "Save for Web" is complex enough for a project.

>  - Effect layers - I think this is fairly straightforward with the
> GIMP as it is, it's a nice chunk of a project, and would be a nice
> feature for users

How is this fairly straightforward with the current architecture? I
would rather say that it is currently almost impossible to implement

> 1. Feature freeze 2.4 soon (before the end of May), for release during
> the Summer
> 2. Create SoC branches for integration of the SoC projects
> 3. After release of 2.4, merge successful projects to HEAD, and release
> 2.5.0  (GIMP-SoC) in September. Let the branch harden for a month or so,
> and release 2.6.0 off that.
> 4. Start gegl integration on a branch, if needs be, and integrate that
> work into HEAD straight after the release of 2.6.0.

I don't see why we should wait with GEGL integration. There are people
waiting for the 2.4 release to start this work. It would be a huge
mistake to postpone this. The amount of GEGL integration that is
planned for the next release is small anyway and is unlikely going to
delay the 2.6 release.

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to