On Thursday 04 October 2007 04:42:55 Raphaël Quinet wrote:
> 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.
I think you miss the point and I do not agree that it is the wrong audience--
because the question arose from users.
Users hear about non-destructive editing but do not understand it. Artists use
tools to achieve results. When discussing tools, as users do on a user list,
the most important discussions to them are discussions of the potentials and
the limits of the tool set. To be able to do that they need an understanding
of the concepts otherwise they do not realize they can use Gimp when they
might otherwise think they are forced to use PS.
I hear you coming from a developer perspective and feel you are in danger of
misinterpreting discussion of non-destructive editing as a critique of
developers, development strategy etc.
Discussion of tool potential and limitation is what users of graphic tool sets
expect to discuss!! If they cannot discuss these things then they cannot
discuss things that are important to them. This is a perspective I do not
expect developers to understand but they should not treat such discussion as
anathema either. Users who are enthusiatic about tools will push the tools to
their limits. I aim to help them do that.
Gimp-user mailing list