Robin Rowe wrote:
> Despite the code reuse in some areas, CinePaint and GIMP are actually
> diverging. CinePaint has a very different vision for the future than GIMP.
> We're pulling in features that further our mission, rejecting others as
> irrelevant, and building new designs that have no counterpart in GIMP.
That's somewhat unfortunate - perhaps you guys are having some
problems that we've already solved or thought about, and we can
> CinePaint won't go back to being Film Gimp and can't ever rejoin the GIMP
> project. That irreversible decision was made -- or not made according to
> Sven -- in 2000, long before I came on the scene. GIMP misplaced three
> man-years of Hollywood-funded open source work. That's an immense amount of
> time and money to lose, especially for an open source project. There can be
> no going back.
Please, stop repeating this myth as if it were fact. Yes, some
people were employed to work on the gimp, and yes, much of the
work they did was not integrated into the gimp core. There, I
said it, we can agree. Now, for the good of both our projects,
and for inter-project relationships, please stop saying it. It
really doesn't help matters.
Actually, a lot of lessons were learned while doing HOLLYWOOD which
have now been absorbed into gegl's design by calvin and yosh.
While there was no conscious decision not to integrate the code,
there was perhaps an unconscious decision (if such a thing
exists) that there was a better way to do things.
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gimp-user mailing list