>If you ask users here and now what they want, you are likely to hear:
In your list of priorities people might come up with, none described broken
essential functionality. Fixing those should be highest priority.
>Wrong. This is open source. That implies that whoever writes the code decides.
You know it's not that simple. The GIMP is too complex, too high-end a project
for whimsical involvement. Discussions are held and priorities are set. It's
perfectly valid for an end user to take part in that discussion.
>I don't think any serious user would be willing to throw away his work of the
>last years just because GIMP breaks backwards compatibility.
You're right about that and no-one has argued for data loss, quite the reverse.
You're presenting a straw man argument.
One thing I've learned here is that the demands of the advanced photographer
workflow in GIMP are under-represented. I do get a strong impression that one
particular argument has been overly influential, and it went something like
this: "I can see the Color mode works differently than some may expect, but
doesn't mean it's broken. It just works different, so there's no urgency to
Well, a painter or to a lesser extent a designer might be able to say that.
even diletante photographers. But the GIMP is a high-end editor, with an
advanced feature set, targetting advanced photographers, alongside the groups
mentioned. Their needs - when functionality essential to their workflow is
broken - should be better appreciated and respected.
I think we've by now covered most of the angles. So barring any new input
let's wait and see what 2.8 brings. Given that the primary functionality of
Color mode is already said to be fixed, I'm catiously optimistic a similar
situation won't arise. In addition, I can't think of anything beside transfer
modes that would affect rendering. So even if something may need urgent
there's a good chance the rendering concern won't apply.
Gimp-developer mailing list