On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 11:56 PM, ceas <for...@gimpusers.com> wrote:
> we used to have serveral time of dicusstion about some kind of
> such as gimp foundation (some kind as blender foundation) rejected by the
I have no idea whether making a foundation is good or not, but... what does
it have anything to do with the rest?
Having a foundation does not make suddenly collaboration easy. And on the
other hand, not having one does not make it hard by definition.
> in my view, the the porblem is the kind of development of gimp right
> now is not encourage the new type trying for some enthusiastic new income
> developers. they highten the bar but give a hand.
I don't see at all why you would say this. In the thread you linked me
earlier for instance, the maintainer (Michael Natterer) is the one who
does completely encourage the author to go on:
* he asks the ones with negative comments to stop discouraging the author
"I don't know who that "GIMP team" is, but my vision is that we encourage
new development like this, and not put an end to it with mails such as
* he encourages the author to contribute: "Sigtech: I *strongly* encourage
you to please go on, and if you could port it to goat-invasion that would
be great, it's not that different from master."
* he proposes him to come discuss it on IRC: "I haven't looked at the code
yet, would you mind to come to #gimp on irc.gimp.org to talk about the
and so on. That's not because others may have been negative from the start
that it means the process is broken (or else you take a random guy who came
once in a restaurant and yell and you say that this restaurant is usually
Note that I am not trying to defend anyone (and I certainly don't know
Michael Natterer except for minor 2-line discussions a few times on IRC,
and honestly I don't care as long as collaboration is good). For me there
is no such thing as a "team", a "community" in Free Software. There are
only individuals who try to work together.
Then obviously it does not mean that any contribution can be accepted right
away, in particular in this case where the author obviously propose some
deep changes (apparently wanting to replace a core library by another one
written in C++ if I understand. That's not something to take lightly!).
Also what is asked of him is much normal: working on master branch,
following the decisions that have been done previously (porting to GEGL,
etc.), and such. If you don't do this, well the program is doomed and
development go completely berserk. When you participate on a project, you
can't take over everyone, *even when you think you know better*.
I have worked with people doing this in companies and that leads only to
I also have several patches waiting on the Bugzilla, and many other lined
up for ulterior proposition. But I take on myself. I also have my private
2.8 branch where I port my new features (that I worked on and patched for
git master first!) so that I can provide them to the artist I work with
immediately. But as my goal is not to maintain indefinitely an alternate
branch, I conform to upstream rules and listen to advices, which may mean
change the way a proposed feature is working or even dropping part of it if
it is poor.
In any case, collaboration is a 2-way thing. I don't know exactly how it
ended and why Sigetch apparently decided not to participate. That's just
too bad to duplicate efforts this way.
in this case, some even didn't make a judgement before understand what
> want to do.
> i am not intend saying someone' bad, but i think the world will be more
> beautifull if we use this
> "hey , this sound like interesting, but we have some problem if use your
> directioin, let 's find a way to makethe ideal works."
I read that's the way Michael did it, as I said.
Why antagonize when we could work it out?
> " hey, we wont use it, since the painting is never an objective, you can
> it but we wont merge it."
> ceas (via www.gimpusers.com/forums)
> gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list mailing list