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
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 11:48:06AM +0100, Dave Neary wrote:
Selon Michael Schumacher [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Von: Dave Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If it was put in bugzilla, the patch would have been
refused, or we would have asked him to work on it.
That's how things are handled in
On Wednesday 01 March 2006 06:01, Manish Singh wrote:
Scratched an itch, and caused tons of confusion in a community.
Horrible.
Oh well, it's done. Bitching now isn't helping, so why not try to resolve the
situation?
___
Gimp-user mailing list
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
Selon Michael Schumacher [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Von: Dave Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If it was put in bugzilla, the patch would have been
refused, or we would have asked him to work on it.
That's how things are handled in Bugzilla, so what is the problem?
The guy scratched an itch. Why should
On Feb 27, 2006, at 10:54 PM, Manish Singh wrote:
The guy who did Gimpshop decided to do his own thing, and didn't
consult
the community at all before doing it. Since he didn't engage the
community and those who actually know the code best, he did it in a
completely stupid fashion
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 12:01:05AM -0600, Robert Citek wrote:
On Feb 27, 2006, at 10:54 PM, Manish Singh wrote:
The guy who did Gimpshop decided to do his own thing, and didn't
consult
the community at all before doing it. Since he didn't engage the
community and those who actually know
