[Gimp-user] GIMP-painter-2.8: Current development status (20121202)
the dicussion is dgressed from my original will -- let people know gimp-painter a great job by sigetch so i may quit right now -- ceas (via www.gimpusers.com/forums) ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP-painter-2.8: Current development status (20121202)
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 6:56 PM, ceas wrote: > maintainer. in my view, the the porblem is the kind of development of gimp > right > now is not encourage the new type trying for some enthusiastic new income > developers. If I may ask... How does your view explain 4 completely new tools developed during GSoC 2011 and GSoC2012? How does it explain rggjan's friendly fork to improve object selection which ended up in creating a matting operator in GEGL for use in new generation of GIMP? > i am not intend saying someone' bad, but i think the world will be more > beautifull if we use this > "hey , this sound like interesting, but we have some problem if use your > method > directioin, let 's find a way to makethe ideal works." > rather than > " hey, we wont use it, since the painting is never an objective, you can > folk > it but we wont merge it." As Jehan already explained, this is simply not what happened. Alexandre Prokoudine http://libregraphicsworld.org ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP-painter-2.8: Current development status (20121202)
Hi, On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 11:56 PM, ceas wrote: > Jehan > we used to have serveral time of dicusstion about some kind of > collaboration > such as gimp foundation (some kind as blender foundation) rejected by the > maintainer. > I have no idea whether making a foundation is good or not, but... what does it have anything to do with the rest? Having a foundation does not make suddenly collaboration easy. And on the other hand, not having one does not make it hard by definition. > in my view, the the porblem is the kind of development of gimp right > now is not encourage the new type trying for some enthusiastic new income > developers. they highten the bar but give a hand. > I don't see at all why you would say this. In the thread you linked me earlier for instance, the maintainer (Michael Natterer) is the one who does completely encourage the author to go on: * he asks the ones with negative comments to stop discouraging the author "I don't know who that "GIMP team" is, but my vision is that we encourage new development like this, and not put an end to it with mails such as yours." * he encourages the author to contribute: "Sigtech: I *strongly* encourage you to please go on, and if you could port it to goat-invasion that would be great, it's not that different from master." * he proposes him to come discuss it on IRC: "I haven't looked at the code yet, would you mind to come to #gimp on irc.gimp.org to talk about the implementation?" and so on. That's not because others may have been negative from the start that it means the process is broken (or else you take a random guy who came once in a restaurant and yell and you say that this restaurant is usually very noisy). Note that I am not trying to defend anyone (and I certainly don't know Michael Natterer except for minor 2-line discussions a few times on IRC, and honestly I don't care as long as collaboration is good). For me there is no such thing as a "team", a "community" in Free Software. There are only individuals who try to work together. Then obviously it does not mean that any contribution can be accepted right away, in particular in this case where the author obviously propose some deep changes (apparently wanting to replace a core library by another one written in C++ if I understand. That's not something to take lightly!). Also what is asked of him is much normal: working on master branch, following the decisions that have been done previously (porting to GEGL, etc.), and such. If you don't do this, well the program is doomed and development go completely berserk. When you participate on a project, you can't take over everyone, *even when you think you know better*. I have worked with people doing this in companies and that leads only to bad things. I also have several patches waiting on the Bugzilla, and many other lined up for ulterior proposition. But I take on myself. I also have my private 2.8 branch where I port my new features (that I worked on and patched for git master first!) so that I can provide them to the artist I work with immediately. But as my goal is not to maintain indefinitely an alternate branch, I conform to upstream rules and listen to advices, which may mean change the way a proposed feature is working or even dropping part of it if it is poor. In any case, collaboration is a 2-way thing. I don't know exactly how it ended and why Sigetch apparently decided not to participate. That's just too bad to duplicate efforts this way. > > in this case, some even didn't make a judgement before understand what > sigetch > want to do. > i am not intend saying someone' bad, but i think the world will be more > beautifull if we use this > "hey , this sound like interesting, but we have some problem if use your > method > directioin, let 's find a way to makethe ideal works." > I read that's the way Michael did it, as I said. Why antagonize when we could work it out? Jehan rather than > " hey, we wont use it, since the painting is never an objective, you can > folk > it but we wont merge it." > > -- > ceas (via www.gimpusers.com/forums) > ___ > gimp-user-list mailing list > gimp-user-list@gnome.org > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list > ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
[Gimp-user] GIMP-painter-2.8: Current development status (20121202)
Jehan we used to have serveral time of dicusstion about some kind of collaboration such as gimp foundation (some kind as blender foundation) rejected by the maintainer. in my view, the the porblem is the kind of development of gimp right now is not encourage the new type trying for some enthusiastic new income developers. they highten the bar but give a hand. in this case, some even didn't make a judgement before understand what sigetch want to do. i am not intend saying someone' bad, but i think the world will be more beautifull if we use this "hey , this sound like interesting, but we have some problem if use your method directioin, let 's find a way to makethe ideal works." rather than " hey, we wont use it, since the painting is never an objective, you can folk it but we wont merge it." -- ceas (via www.gimpusers.com/forums) ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
[Gimp-user] GIMP-painter-2.8: Current development status (20121202)
Jehan we used to have serveral time of dicusstion about some kind of collaboration such as gimp foundation (some kind as blender foundation) rejected by the maintainer. in my view, the the porblem is the kind of development of gimp right now is not encourage the new type trying for some enthusiastic new income developers. they highten the bar but give a hand. in this case, some even didn't make a judgement before understand what sigetch want to do. i am not intend saying someone' bad, but i think the world will be more beautifull if we use this "hey , this sound like interesting, but we have some problem if use your method directioin, let 's find a way the ideal works." rather than " hey, we wont use it, since the painting is never an objective, you can folk it but we wont merge it." -- ceas (via www.gimpusers.com/forums) ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP-painter-2.8: Current development status (20121202)
Hi, On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 10:58 PM, ceas wrote: > Jehan > you may find the answer form here > > http://www.gimpusers.com/forums/gimp-developer/14329-demo-porting-mypaint-brush-engines-to-the-gimp > > Thanks Ceas. Other people pointed me to the same thread yesterday on IRC. I'd say that's too bad if we really don't manage a collaboration, where everybody has something to gain (us for new neat features, Sigetch for ensuring the long time maintenance of his features upstream, and the users for having all in one great program). Right now we have 2 programs looking very similar, except for a few features. I don't know how long it can last this way until the fork either dies or flies away and become too different a codebase to be re-usable by us. :-/ That's sad when this happens, in particular as the maintainer of GIMP is far nicer, more responsive and open to contributions than many other mainstream FLOSS programs I have (or tried on) contributed on. Jehan > > > -- > ceas (via www.gimpusers.com/forums) > ___ > gimp-user-list mailing list > gimp-user-list@gnome.org > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list > ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
[Gimp-user] GIMP-painter-2.8: Current development status (20121202)
Jehan you may find the answer form here http://www.gimpusers.com/forums/gimp-developer/14329-demo-porting-mypaint-brush-engines-to-the-gimp -- ceas (via www.gimpusers.com/forums) ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP-painter-2.8: Current development status (20121202)
Hi, On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 5:06 PM, ceas wrote: > this guy does a great job > who not have a look and give a like > > > GIMP-painter-2.8: Current development status (20121202) > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgDZhTK0NDc&list=UUbCkZSrlilC1Hn6RpTXDHdw&index=1 > > Very interesting. Isn't GIMP-painter the fork born from GIMP 2.6, whose only difference was (at the time) the additional paintbrush tool (the feature request is still open there: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=56)? I thought, last I searched for it (and also because the author of paintbrush tool never answered to the feature request where it was asked if he could adapt the patch to the dev tree), that the development stopped at this version 2.6. So now I searched again, and I found this: http://fr.sourceforge.jp/projects/gimp-painter/scm/git/gimp-painter-2.7/ The last commit is tagged "gimp-2-8" and "rotate", so I guess that's it. The question is: why not propose these very neat features to the upstream tree so that they can get out with GIMP 2.10?! That would be much better long term. This canvas rotating function demonstrated in the video is indeed quite nice. Are there other differences in the fork other than the canvas rotate and the paintbrush tool? Jehan > -- > ceas (via www.gimpusers.com/forums) > ___ > gimp-user-list mailing list > gimp-user-list@gnome.org > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list > ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
[Gimp-user] GIMP-painter-2.8: Current development status (20121202)
this guy does a great job who not have a look and give a like GIMP-painter-2.8: Current development status (20121202) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgDZhTK0NDc&list=UUbCkZSrlilC1Hn6RpTXDHdw&index=1 -- ceas (via www.gimpusers.com/forums) ___ gimp-user-list mailing list gimp-user-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
