On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 08:18:44PM +0200, Sven Neumann wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 11:36 -0600, Scott wrote:
> 
> > Just curious, what would be so wrong with saving the original file as
> > a backup before doing a destructive save? Emacs only bites me when I'm
> > *really* stupid....
> 
> There's nothing wrong with that. It's even on the list of things that
> the file plug-in library should have. The file plug-in library we would
> like to port all our file plug-ins to. If you are so much interested in
> this, perhaps want to offer your help with this task?

Well, if I had any development skills, I'd be more than happy to do
so. I used to enjoy writing code for totally text-based programs under
cpm and msdos, and still write some for linux, but graphics-based
programming is a bit beyond me. I tried once to compile the Gimp from
SVN and failed miserably, so I doubt I'd be a good candidate, though
certainly would be willing to help.

> 
> > I am so glad that Guillermo stuck by his guns and apparently *finally*
> > got the developers to realise the illogic of this "feature". If more
> > of us users would be as persistent instead of just going away after
> > the initial knee-jerk "you don't know enough to even be talking to us"
> > response which seems too prevalent here, maybe the Gimp would become
> > all that it can be.
> 
> If more users would be so persistent, as you call it, then there would
> probably not a single developer left who would feel that developing GIMP
> is fun. There would probably be noone who would be willing to spend
> his/her free time on it.

As I perceived the thread, Guillermo's approach would not take the
fun out of anything. He merely was pointing out a serious problem with
the way Gimp implements the 'save' as regards jpeg files; something a
developer probably never thought of, but something with serious
adverse consequences to a normal user.

> 
> I don't see the point in your mail. We listened to Guillermo and his
> issue was addressed in almost no time. It was absolutely not needed to
> stick to any guns.

And it did eventually get addressed, but only after an attempted
brush-off or two. Read the thread.

> 
> We are working very hard to finally get 2.4 out and because we are
> taking this very seriously, we are in this pre-release mode for a long
> time already. It would help a lot if we could concentrate on the
> important things now which is to bring out GIMP 2.4. The users could
> finally benefit from the hard work the developers have put into GIMP
> over the last years. Perhaps than the users would finally realise that a
> lot is happening to make GIMP better and easier to use.
> 

Don't get me wrong, we users *do* obviously appreciate all of the work
you guys do, or we wouldn't be using the program on a daily
basis. It's just that we often get the perception that when any suggestion
is made on this list that something isn't quite working as it should,
there is a "we know better than you do" attitude. I'm sure it isn't
intentional?


> Can we settle this now and get back to work? Thanks.
> 

Fine by me.

Scott Swanson
_______________________________________________
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Reply via email to