> Since we released stable  versions with this broken behavior we now have
> to maintain backward  compatibility to it. It is considered very
> important that you can open your  old XCF files in a new version of GIMP
> and get the same result as in the  version you created them in.

I suggest that implementing the improved functionality is of much higher 
priority than backwards compatibility with the old.  Particularly in a project 
such as GIMP, where development resources are as precious as they are.

You can tackle this with a marketing "thought experiment": if you were to ask a 
group of GIMP users what they would prefer, speedy fixing of broken features, 
insistence on backwards compatibility, which would the majority vote for?  If 
the thought experiment isn't convincing enough, then you can do an actual poll, 
through mailing lists and forums.

Besides, the appropriate and established way of addressing backward 
compatibility is through the handling of old files, not by refusing to 
improvements.  Reading some of the discussions among the GIMP development team 
in relation to the issue of broken Color transfer mode was the first time I 
encountered the argument that it was preferrable to keep the broken 
functionality over fixing it, because a user might want to keep old rendering 
the new version.  What a nonsensical argument!

Has there been a single user outside the dev team who expressed this view?

At this stage I'd prefer to avoid the argument and let the team focus on the 
positive task of bringing out the next version.  However, there will be bugs in 
new stable releases, in 2.8, 2.10 and beyond.  So the argument of how those 
are to be dealt with and what priority backward compatibility is to have will 
not go away.  We might as well tackle it as we go along instead of delaying it.



Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to