>From Alexandre:
>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.

>From Tobias:
>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 
'correct' it."

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

Reply via email to