> Okay I want to clear this up:
> GEGL *is* coded (see www.gegl.org), and already in use by a few
> different applications.
Much apologies. I was always under the impression that while there
is a working version, more work could have been used for adding
features and such. I blame my lack of understanding of what GEGL is
supposed to Do, as opposed to what it will Allow Gimp to do.
> It works. Getting it working fast and bugfree, though (for instance,
> good caching behaviour), will be driven by use in GIMP, which will
> help to locate slow and buggy areas of GEGL.
This makes sense.
> Initial integration will probably be a fussy business, rather than a
> particularly large one -- making sure that a) it's used right and b)
> the parts that should use it, do use it.
Basically, what's needed is a roadmap of how GEGL will be integrated?
Complete with a definition of all the parts that need to use it, and
Maybe this should be developed before a Gimp roadmap is defined? This
way developers would have a better idea of how much work will need to
be done to integrate GEGL, and how it can be distributed into different
> It's worth a minute to point out the notable, and deserved, absence of
> adjustment layers from this list. People have had a few discussions
> (here? certainly on bugzilla.) about this topic, and it arose that:
> a) Adjustment layers are generally an ugly, complicated idea
> b) They are also an unnecessary idea -- the combination of layer
> effects and layer grouping can produce the same effects in a much more
> sensible way.
Thanks for the explanation! I actually had no idea what the difference
between adjustment layers and layer effects is supposed to be, so didn't
dare to add it twice. ;)
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
Gimp-developer mailing list