On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 15:01:06 +0200, Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If it's called "fade" and it doesn't fade, it's of no use.
NO. If it does something it can not be described as "of no use". That is
nonsense. It may be called obscure , buggy or misleading if it does not
work in an intuitive way in the UI. That's an other issue. There's plenty
of cool features in Gimp that you just need to know about to use.
If you think it's useless dont use it. But please dont start stamping you
feet and try to stop others using it because it does not work just how it
> Ok then we will have to remove it, as we can't change it. That's sad
> because it's a nice feature. But if so many people don't understand it,
> then it should probably be removed. I will make a patch for that then.
Like you say , it sad to remove a nice feature just because it does not
tie in to the interface as expected.
Why not just mark the underlying problem of the structure as a FIXME, the
major porting of the code to GEGL would be an *ideal* time for this to be
taken into account. The more idiosincracies like this that get flagged the
better that restructuring can be done.
I think papering over this issue by removing fade would actually be
detrimental to the work on moving to GEGL.
Gimp-developer mailing list