On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 02:55:35 -0700, gimp_user <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 02 October 2007 13:02:02 Simon Budig wrote:
> > Not "just noise", his points have some merit. But they are directed to
> > the wrong audience and the intended audience already knows about his
> > points. That ironically makes his mails pointless...
> >
> If you regard my contributions as noise then please do not waste you time 
> reading them unless you are trolling to start a flame war. If so you will not 
> be successful here because I will follow a policy I have followed over 30 
> years on mail lists -- keep on topic and, apart from making a polite qrequest 
> to keep on topic,  ignore trolling provocations designed to take threads off 
> topic by making personal comments.  

I assume that you have read the part of Simon's message that you have
quoted above.  He did not write that your contributions are noise.  He
wrote that they are addressed to the wrong audience.  Furthermore, the
developers (who may be a better audience for feature requests) are
already aware of the benefits of non-destructive editing, and the GEGL
library is a step in that direction.

Considering that most developers are already aware of the benefits
(and overhead) of non-destructive editing, I am wondering why you keep
on arguing about it.

You are posting this on the user list. Although this list can provide
good feedback about what some users like or do not like, this may not
be the best place to argue about how to implement a feature that has
already been discussed several times.  Well, unless you think that
some members of this list who are not already developers would be so
convinced by your arguments that they would decide to learn
programming, study the GIMP internals, and start redesigning the whole
GIMP core on their own.  But I consider this to be rather unlikely.

So please think twice before arguing about these issues.  I suggest
that you take a look at GEGL if you haven't looked at it already.
Then feel free to bring back this topic on this list or on the
developers list in about two years if you think that GIMP is not
making progress in the right direction.


P.S.: The suggestion to bring this back in two years is not a way to
      keep you away.  It is just a reflection on the speed at which
      GIMP is developed and probably the earliest date at which some
      of the suggested features could be reviewed.
Gimp-user mailing list

Reply via email to