On 7/28/10, David Gowers wrote:

>> 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.
>
> This is an erroneous dichotomy, because a failure to preserve
> backwards compatibility is itself a 'broken feature'
> GIMP is the definitive loader of XCFs. Any other format, it is nice if
> it supports perfectly, but hardly needed. Its own format, it MUST
> support perfectly, however it achieves that.

Which is why sins of the past could be pardoned by switching to XCF2
which is still in plans, afaik, no? Then GIMP could do things the
right way.

Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org
_______________________________________________
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Reply via email to