Marc Lehmann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > discussion on #gimp and #gimp is IRC and not gimp-developer
> The discussion took partly place here also, so please take your dogs back
> and complain elsewhere about appropriateness.
> > you haven't been around on #gimp when this conversation took place,
> Well, the discussion here was quite similar (although on #irc it seems to
> have been worse, which is not surprising to me, many people on #gimp are
> rather bigheaded and aggressive, much more so than on gimp-developer).

If you want to argue about personal matters please do it off the list.

The discussion started in bug #124073 and continued on IRC and now gets
moved to these lists.

GSR wants to replace something I implemented and have put some thought
in it. It should be me who is pissed because of this,  however, instead
of just defending my implementation I chose to offer a compromise on
this list.

GSR did not yet convince me, that his implementation has any advantages
over the current implementation in CVS and I will continue to ask for
clarifications until I am convinced that replacing the implementation
in CVS is a good thing.

Mainly his arguments seem to be: "100% is more important than extreme
ratios" (please note that my implentation does not have *any* bias
towards a certain zoom ratio, and I believe that this is a good thing.
And if we need finer grained step it is a two line patch to replace
sqrt(2) with something else) and that for some reason certain
percentage/ratio numbers are more important than others, which I also
doubt. There is no need for 1:7, when 1:6 visually basically looks the

The fact that certain ratios look bad with the current non
interpolating code for the image view cannot be solved by restricting
the ratios available. This has to be done in the view code. And btw.
I doubt that 1:3 looks significantly better than 10:29.

Gimp-user mailing list

Reply via email to