On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 23:13:03 +0200, Øyvind Kolås <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> modifying that code base to deal with this properly will most probably
> been seen as more lasting contributions than changing code that
> eventually only will live on machines running legacy 2.4 series GIMP
> due either to low performance hardware

hmm, just reread this. Does that comment indicate that GEGL is a lot more  
resource hungry than gimp? I'd wondered if that might the case when I  
initially looked at the way it was structured.


Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to