>Personally, I'd prefer that the developers work on enhancing the tool
>rather than making the tool look pretty (ier).
>I'd suggest that if someone likes the idea of skins, they take up that
>project and do it. Then get it into the code.
I was actally not suggesting that the primary developers should take up
their time making the Gimp look shiny; just that it be made possible /
documented on how to manipulate the arrangement and appearance of the UI
with external files, and a dialog to facilitate switching between
arrangements (Or, for starters, a command-line option or some such).
--change of replied-to emails--
>That is a whole lot of maintainance work, way more than you might think.
>I would hope optimistically that things could be adjusted to work well for
>all kinds of users and I think it would be better to make efforts to
>improve the defaults first (but developers will spend time on whatever
>they are most interested in).
>If it is possible to make these kinds of changes and enough people are
>interested it will probably happen (like it just did) so it makes sense to
>try and allow it (and do so in a way that can be maintained) rather than
>telling people to fork if they do not like the user interface.
Now, I readily admit that I haven't really looked into what this would
take, and whether or not this is effectively already possible. I did a
little bit of looking a while back, but not much.
I was mostly thinking of "Skinning" as a way to modularize the Gimp proper
apart from alternate UI arrangements; that way, people who want to make it
shiny can play with those parts, and what they make can take updates to
the underlying code without patching/recompile of their skins.
Gimp-user mailing list