* El 22/06/07 a las  8:53, Sven Neumann chamullaba:

> Hi,
> 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?

Only you seemed not to know, or didn't want to know, where the
"Save EXIF data" option is in GIMP. Alex Pounds knew exactly what
I was talking about, and understand the same as me by "Save as ..."

> 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.

You answered as if no such option never existed, and not as if there
were many.

> 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.

Of course.

> If something breaks in the development version,
> then this does not happen with the intent of breaking something.

I never said that.
We are all here in our free time, we are all here to try to make
GIMP better for others and for us. Not only the developers, but also
the ones that bother reporting bugs.

> It is also not a personal offense, but your mails make it look like
> one.

I don't understand where you read that.

> Look at this for example:
> > So:
> >
> > 1) Is the EXIF source in the all the 3 cameras (of 3 different
> > brands) broken?
> > 2) Why all the other graphic programs that I use (showfoto,
> > gqview, gthumb, exiftool) always showed the EXIF data with no
> > problem, and still show?
> > 3) Why the "Save EXIF data" option in the "Save as..." dialog is
> > no longer present?
> > 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.

Sorry, but I see no aggression in the above quote.
I just tried to point to Mukund that this had nothing to do with
broken EXIF, giving several arguments for that. To be precise.

BTW, it is interesting to notice that you cut the paragraph
that was right before the one you quoted, where I wrote:

: Please excuse me, Mukund, but I will be very surprised
: if this has something to do with broken EXIF data.

Do you also think that an argument that begins with "Please excuse
me..." is aggressive? Probably not, but for some reason you cut that
sentence and took the next out of context.
And still, it is not aggressive.
My apologies to Mukund if he felt that.

> > 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.

My bug report was sent to bugzilla.redhat when Fedora 4 was out.
bugzilla.redhat is dead now.

But I sent this email, with subject "still the same bug" on April 30
to this list (Gimp-developer Digest, Vol 56, Issue 1, to be precise):

: However, about a year or two ago, I reported a bug in Bugzilla:
: the mouse buttons in GIMP main image window do nothing when I have
: attached a my Wacom tablet. ONLY in GIMP. This happened with Fedora
: 4,5,6 (fresh installs), with GIMP stable and devel versions. It is
: the only program that I have this problem, and the bug is still alive.

And just a quick search in http://bugzilla.gnome.org/ in this precise
minute returned this:

http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=406440  (2007-02-10)
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=449590  (2007-06-20)

So, 3 bugzilla reports of the same bug. 4 months and not a single
answer. And still stated as "unconfirmed"! And still we cannot use
the mouse in GIMP.

So, yes, I state, publicly, again: this bug has been ignored for months
(in fact, for years, since Fedora 4, and we are now in Fedora 7).
No matter if you let me 'get away' or not.

BTW, the thread of April 30 mentioned above was because a bug report
I made in this list about a shift in the despeckle plugin was
unanswered! I sent a second report (also included in the same Digest

: Pals,
:     I reported this bug in this list some time ago, and got no
: answer (I think), and the 2.3.16 version still has the same bug:
: The despeckle plugin shifts the image one pixel to the right,
: and one to the bottom. Consequently, it is essentially useless.
: If you draw in the middle of a white background a black cross
: like this:
:  x
: xxx
:  x
: and run the despeckle plugin with radius 1, you get this asymmetric
: output:
:  x
: xxx
:  xx
:     Thanks,
:         Luis.

I hope you don't think the 'tone' was aggressive in this mail also...
However, and I even received this answer as a gift:

: I suspect it got ignored since one pixel
: offset errors are pretty much to be expected.

...an answer that surprised me and several others...
I should point out that the author of the claim said
after this that he was misunderstood, though.


Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to