On 11/13/2010 05:48 PM, photocomix wrote:
>> The only thing that matters when it comes to deciding what to include
>> and what not to include in GIMP is our product vision. If something
>> helps us fulfil our product vision, we will keep it in GIMP 3.0. If it
>> doesn't, we will remove it.   / Martin
> that for what  doesn't fit in the GIMP product vision
> But why wait to eliminate a plugin that doesn't fit in ANY product vision?
> this case is crystal clear:
> nobody use that plugin ,a plugin that quoting his tooltip produce ""Special 
> effects that nobody understands" :-),
> This plugin   replace all the original pixel of your photo with  a abstract 
> thingy, a "special effects", hard to define and unpredictable , ...but that 
> always look as crap (
> Why carry its code in gimp 2.8 , just delete the "van-gogh-lib.c file from 
> the code (BTW is in gimp/plug-ins/common ) would took less developer time 
> then a further debates
> The never used van gogh filter is in gimp from 1996 and survived all debates 
> and clean up  till now

You can't know for sure that no one uses this plug-in in some script 
somewhere, and if we don't have a good reason to break our plug-in API, 
we don't do it. Impatience is not a good reason :)



My GIMP Blog:
"Nightly GIMP, GEGL, babl tarball builds"
Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to