On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 09:24:15AM +0100, Dave Neary wrote:
> Hi,
> Selon Manish Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > For Gimpshop, it was all about forking from the get go. There was no
> > discussion, no proposal in any of the several places to discuss GIMP
> > development. No other possibilities were attempted.
> Put things in perspective - the guy wrote a patch. It's a couple of hundred
> lines of a patch, which did something he wanted to do in the easiest way he
> knew how. He did a grep for labels in the source code, and changed them where
> he found them.
> Yes, he could have done it differently, but what he did was useful for a bunch
> of people, and wasn't acceptable for integration into the main GIMP source
> code. So I have no problem with him coming out with the patched GIMP under a
> different name. If it was put in bugzilla, the patch would have been refused, 
> or
> we would have asked him to work on it. So why worry? I'm happy to see this 
> kind
> of thing happenning around the GIMP.

He didn't change the name even. All the windows still say "GIMP". It
only adds to the confusion already. Nearly everything about the way
Gimpshop came about makes me think "is it stupidity, or malice?"
Rejecting a project community without even trying is *not* the way
people should go about things.

This is the second time in a week that someone has misrepresented
Gimpshop's UI as GIMP. There's already enough misinformation out on the
internet, it's deplorable that Gimpshop has worsened the situation. Such
behavior should not be encouraged.

Gimp-user mailing list

Reply via email to