On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 00:18 -0300, Luis A. Florit wrote:
> From aggressive answers, to unanswered mails (not that bad),
It would help a lot if you could try to be more precise in your mails.
That would avoid the need to ask for details. If a dialog is titled
"Save as JPEG", then why do you call it "Save as ..." several times?
Your message was so imprecise that even experienced GIMP developers
could not tell what exactly you are talking about. Several plug-in can
save EXIF data and without the information which plug-in you are using,
there is not much we can do.
Also, your questions are rather aggressive. It would help a lot if you
could try to understand that people are working on this project in their
free time. If something breaks in the development version, then this
does not happen with the intent of breaking something. It is also not a
personal offense, but your mails make it look like one.
Look at this for example:
> 1) Is the EXIF source in the all the 3 cameras (of 3 different brands)
> 2) Why all the other graphic programs that I use (showfoto, gqview,
> exiftool) always showed the EXIF data with no problem, and still
> 3) Why the "Save EXIF data" option in the "Save as..." dialog is no
> 4) Why GIMP deletes the EXIF data now?
> 5) If broken, why previous versions of GIMP preserve the EXIF data?
> GIMP 2.3.16 2.3.17 and 2.2.14 still work perfectly for me
> (in this respect; I had to stop using 2.3.17 because it crashed
> consistently, probably because of its known bug).
Is this tone in any way helpful? The only thing you can achieve by
putting it this way is to demotivate the developer working on this.
> to ignored bug reports in bugzilla (VERY bad).
Please point me to any ignored bug reports. We take bug reports very
seriously and I will not let you get away stating in public that we
would ignore bug reports.
Gimp-developer mailing list