On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 21:38:26 +0100, Raphaël Quinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 08:47:40 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I find it rather arrogant to presume that those who can code are the
>> ones who can contribute to development and as a consequence anyone who
>> code is also an authority on graphic design and UI implementation.
> You are distorting what Sven said, but this seems to be a rather common
> perception and complaint so maybe this deserves some clarifications:
I dont agree. He was dismissing Guillermo's comments as just another
user's wishlist when clearly Guillermo has and is trying to bring his
professional expertise to contribute to GIMP development.
Guillermo has already identified some destructive short comings in jpeg
save which led to quite serious and worthwhile improvements to the code.
To dismiss him as just another user and call his posts distracting is
disrespectful to his efforts. Not that being dismissive and disrespectful
is anything out of the ordinary for Sven.
I recall a week or two ago he spat back a suggestion from Simon as
So Sven , before demanding public appologies from anyone learn some
respect and good manners towards others. When you feel like appologising
to all those you've been offensive with you may like to ask again.
> Yes, the development of GIMP 2.6 will be mostly developer driven and
> there will not be much room left for additional suggestions and other
> stuff that is not already in the list of tasks that we are discussing
> here. I am not saying that to disappoint you. I am saying that
> because we have to cope with reality.
> Here are some reasons:
> - We have far more ideas than developers. We even have far more *good*
> ideas than developers.
> - The development cycle leading to GIMP 2.4 was much too long. It took
> almost 3 years since the release of GIMP 2.2. The development of
> GIMP 2.6 should be much shorter so that everybody can benefit from
> new features and other improvements without having to wait several
> years between stable releases. But this means that we have to make
> some hard choices and leave some interesting stuff for later.
> - The integration of GEGL and the support for higher bit depths is not
> a trivial task. Although there were great hopes that GIMP 2.6 would
> have good support for 16 bits per color channel, fancy color spaces
> and other features that many users are waiting for, we will not be
> able to get all of that ready in time. We will make some steps in
> the right direction, but there will still be a lot of work left for
> after 2.6.
> So what does that mean? We already know at this point that it will be
> challenging to achieve all goals that are mentioned in the draft
> roadmap for 2.6. Some of these tasks may seem to be rather obscure and
> may not bring many visible changes in GIMP 2.6, but they are necessary
> so that the releases that will follow 2.6 can support higher bit depths
> (in the core and in the plug-ins) and many other long-awaited features,
> including some improvements in the user interface.
> Considering that we are already struggling with the current list of
> tasks for which some volunteers exist (there are developers willing to
> spend some of their spare time working on them), I think that Sven is
> right when he reminds you that it is not the right time to discuss
> things that are not in the scope of 2.6 (tasks that are not already
> supported by a volunteer developer).
> Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer mailing list