Martin Nordholts wrote:
> Hi Joe
> Suggesting a new feature without specifying how the algorithm behind it
> work is pointless because how could the feature then be implemented?
> There are way too many other things to use the sparse GIMP developer
> resources for than to research details of other peoples feature requests.
Well people do it to me all the time with blender. . .I sometimes figure
it out, and if I don't have time to develop it myself I'll try and tell
some other dev how it works. And he also offered to show a video about
it. Feature videos are really useful for reverse engineering; I don't
understand why Sven said otherwise. You can tell a lot sometimes.
Also it's not as if anyone *has* to devote time to figuring it out.
Users will make many, many more requests then there will ever be time to
code, much less research. Simply listening to the more popular or
useful sounding ones will give devs an impression of what users really
want, and even what they *need*. This can help formulate long-term
plans, both for the project but also for individual devs who think that way.
Such requests might not always be appropriate for a feature tracker, or
even a mailing list (I think IRC is a good place to put forth these
ideas). But they shouldn't be rejected out of hand, either. I'm not
totally sure the best way to handle this; Blender has a functionality
mailing list that kindof serves the purpose of random feature requests,
but it doesn't work very well. Like I said, for unlikely or somewhat
obscure features it seems to be best if users discuss them on IRC, then
if a dev gets interested he can, oh I don't know add it to the feature
tracker or something like that. Or if he's like me, he may think about
these sorts of a features every once in a while, and in a year or two
even implement a few of them.
> Note the difference between not listening to users and rejecting
> incomplete feature requests. We appreciate that you think GIMP is worth
> spending some on to help improving, but please don't take it personal if
> some of your suggestions are considered incomplete.
Imho, an incomplete feature request is something like "I want a tool to
make healing brush better" or something weird like that. "I want a tool
that automatically selects a source region for healing brush" imho gives
plenty of information, and if passed along to someone who knows the math
behind it might even make sense to them. No one is obligated to
research this, or even pay attention to it. All that matters is it
sounds like a useful idea proposed by a user. And feature videos can
help; I myself pieced 3d ray baking together from watching one modo video.
> It would be very appreciated if you took the time to research exactly
> how this algorithm is supposed to work.
> Martin Nordholts
Well I don't have the time for that. :)
Gimp-developer mailing list