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...


         founder + principal interaction architect
             man + machine interface works
 : on interaction architecture

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to