If something
>helps us fulfil our product vision, we will keep it in GIMP 3.0. If it
>doesn't, we will remove it. This particularly applies to things that are
>part of our plug-in API (like other plug-ins and libgimp* APIs) that we
>can't remove after GIMP 3.0 has been released.
> / Martin
Just read the specs here:
http://gui.gimp.org/index.php/Transformation_tool_specification
I like that very much... except this:
> Transformation constraints
> [...]
> from centre
> works on scale and shear, toggled by
> [...]
> centre/corner rotate
> works on rotation axis, toggled by
>The only thing that matters when it comes to deciding what to include
>and what not to include in GIMP is our product vision. If something
>helps us fulfil our product vision, we will keep it in GIMP 3.0. If it
>doesn't, we will remove it. / Martin
that for what doesn't fit in the GIMP pr
On 11/13/2010 05:48 PM, photocomix wrote:
>
>
>> The only thing that matters when it comes to deciding what to include
>> and what not to include in GIMP is our product vision. If something
>> helps us fulfil our product vision, we will keep it in GIMP 3.0. If it
>> doesn't, we will remove it. /
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Martin Nordholts wrote:
> You can't know for sure that no one uses this plug-in in some script
> somewhere, and if we don't have a good reason to break our plug-in API,
> we don't do it. Impatience is not a good reason :)
>
>
Here is a better reason, maybe. It i
On 11/14/2010 01:21 AM, Bill Skaggs wrote:
> In my opinion, there are two plug-ins that have this property: the
> "Van Gogh" filter (which
> has absolutely nothing to do with Van Gogh), and the so-called "NL
> Filter".
The NL filter is a different matter. The human factors are abysmal. It
sh
