Tobias Jakobs wrote: > On Dec 6, 2007 2:10 PM, peter sikking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> When 2.4 came out, I made a statement that that day was also the >> end of fire brigade mode for the UI team. So can we do this in the >> right order please: > That is only fair and I think the results will be better this way. > >> 1) we decide that this issue is worth our limited resources and >> has higher precedence than other issues (that will remain >> unsolved); > > Who do you mean with "our limited resources", the UI team, the > programmers or the complete team?
All involved in development: UI team, developers, documenters. >> 2) we therefore put it on the road map, stating what we will tackle, >> leaving out the ambitious stuff; > > Do we/you have a list with the impotents of the different issues? I think that is a consensus thing. Also everything is connected with the phased introduction of GEGL, which we have seen recently makes working on some urgent issues a waste of time, because a lot of code will be scrapped. And yes, I understand and support that 2.6 is going to be 'light' on UI changes, to get the phase-one GEGL work done. > Can we use the road map for this or do we need a second list? Let's see: a roadmap is new for GIMP, as is a structural UI renovation project, as is a new engine. We need to get experienced with this and better integration of all big ideas out there. From my side I need to contribute by doing the analysis part of our UI process and make that accessible as blog entries (a GIMP issue a day?). I am really looking forward to a roadmap... --ps founder + principal interaction architect man + machine interface works http://mmiworks.net/blog : on interaction architecture _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer