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 :) Regards, Martin -- My GIMP Blog: http://www.chromecode.com/ "Nightly GIMP, GEGL, babl tarball builds" _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
