Re: [Gimp-user] Re: CinePaint and Film Gimp
Yosh, Please stop making stuff up and rewriting history to suit your own story. You have no real idea what happened before you appeared. You are right that I don't have the whole story and must rely upon what others say who were actually there. Unlike Sven or me, you were one of the sponsored Film Gimp developers, correct? You were there. You can state what happened or didn't happen as someone who was personally involved. Whether the question is how could GIMP vote down Film Gimp with so much riding on it, or how could GIMP lose Film Gimp through inattention, I'm curious to know how it happened. Can you tell us? You refused to actually help further GEGL by choosing to promote CinePaint instead. That's fine, it's your decision, but for someone who keeps on going on about not having discussions in public you never actually explained that one. Well, I could discuss it if anyone asked me. ;-) My main reason for not joining GIMP/GEGL is the very thing you are asking not be talked about. Nobody from Hollywood is joining GIMP's second attempt at implementing deep paint because GIMP wasted the effort last time. Cheers, Robin --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hollywood, California www.CinePaint.org Free motion picture and still image editing software ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Re: CinePaint and Film Gimp
Yosh, Please stop making stuff up and rewriting history to suit your own story. You have no real idea what happened before you appeared. You are right that I don't have the whole story and must rely upon what others say who were actually there. Unlike Sven or me, you were one of the sponsored Film Gimp developers, correct? You were there. You can state what happened or didn't happen as someone who was personally involved. Whether the question is how could GIMP vote down Film Gimp with so much riding on it, or how could GIMP lose Film Gimp through inattention, I'm curious to know how it happened. Can you tell us? You refused to actually help further GEGL by choosing to promote CinePaint instead. That's fine, it's your decision, but for someone who keeps on going on about not having discussions in public you never actually explained that one. Well, I could discuss it if anyone asked me. ;-) My main reason for not joining GIMP/GEGL is the very thing you are asking not be talked about. Nobody from Hollywood is joining GIMP's second attempt at implementing deep paint because GIMP wasted the effort last time. Cheers, Robin --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hollywood, California www.CinePaint.org Free motion picture and still image editing software ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Re: CinePaint and Film Gimp
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Please, This topic getting a little off topic and a little flamy. Could you please move the discussion off the list or more on topic? - -- Daniel Rogers -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE/Z91uad4P1+ZAZk0RAnfQAJ0a1KdQMZhVxxHLu9KEbN3awwrzgwCdHND+ urpbvKiJpuj4pYeQZ/n9x30= =PZtB -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
[Gimp-user] Re: CinePaint and Film Gimp
Eric, So the merge is on? A restricted code merge has been underway for months, with CinePaint scavenging useful bits from GIMP 1.2. The CinePaint code tree was reorganized to separate source files sensitive to bit-depth from those that are not. Some GIMP 1.2 source files were then swapped out with the latter without anyone noticing. Some GIMP 1.2 plug-ins can now compile as-is under CinePaint's plug-in API, and that situation is improving all the time. Our new plug-in compatibility layer (PICL) enables CinePaint to accept plug-ins utilizing the GIMP 1.0, 1.1, or 1.2 APIs. Although code compatible, the plug-ins must be recompiled. Don't try to use plug-in binaries from GIMP in CinePaint. Despite the code reuse in some areas, CinePaint and GIMP are actually diverging. CinePaint has a very different vision for the future than GIMP. We're pulling in features that further our mission, rejecting others as irrelevant, and building new designs that have no counterpart in GIMP. CinePaint won't go back to being Film Gimp and can't ever rejoin the GIMP project. That irreversible decision was made -- or not made according to Sven -- in 2000, long before I came on the scene. GIMP misplaced three man-years of Hollywood-funded open source work. That's an immense amount of time and money to lose, especially for an open source project. There can be no going back. Cheers, Robin --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hollywood, California www.CinePaint.org Free motion picture and still image editing software ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
[Gimp-user] Re: CinePaint and Film Gimp
Eric, So the merge is on? A restricted code merge has been underway for months, with CinePaint scavenging useful bits from GIMP 1.2. The CinePaint code tree was reorganized to separate source files sensitive to bit-depth from those that are not. Some GIMP 1.2 source files were then swapped out with the latter without anyone noticing. Some GIMP 1.2 plug-ins can now compile as-is under CinePaint's 1.0-like plug-in API, and that situation is improving all the time. Our new plug-in compatibility layer (PICL) enables CinePaint to accept plug-ins utilizing the GIMP 1.0, 1.1, or 1.2 APIs. Although code compatible, the plug-ins must be recompiled. Don't try to use plug-in binaries from GIMP in CinePaint. Despite the code reuse in some areas, CinePaint and GIMP are actually diverging. CinePaint has a very different vision for the future than GIMP. We're pulling in features that further our mission, rejecting others as irrelevant, and building new designs that have no counterpart in GIMP. CinePaint won't go back to being Film Gimp and can't ever rejoin the GIMP project. That irreversible decision was made -- or not made according to Sven -- in 2000, long before I came on the scene. GIMP misplaced three man-years of Hollywood-funded open source work. That's an immense amount of time and money to lose, especially for an open source project. There can be no going back. Cheers, Robin --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hollywood, California www.CinePaint.org Free motion picture and still image editing software ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Re: CinePaint and Film Gimp
Hi Robin, Robin Rowe wrote: Despite the code reuse in some areas, CinePaint and GIMP are actually diverging. CinePaint has a very different vision for the future than GIMP. We're pulling in features that further our mission, rejecting others as irrelevant, and building new designs that have no counterpart in GIMP. That's somewhat unfortunate - perhaps you guys are having some problems that we've already solved or thought about, and we can get talking? CinePaint won't go back to being Film Gimp and can't ever rejoin the GIMP project. That irreversible decision was made -- or not made according to Sven -- in 2000, long before I came on the scene. GIMP misplaced three man-years of Hollywood-funded open source work. That's an immense amount of time and money to lose, especially for an open source project. There can be no going back. Please, stop repeating this myth as if it were fact. Yes, some people were employed to work on the gimp, and yes, much of the work they did was not integrated into the gimp core. There, I said it, we can agree. Now, for the good of both our projects, and for inter-project relationships, please stop saying it. It really doesn't help matters. Actually, a lot of lessons were learned while doing HOLLYWOOD which have now been absorbed into gegl's design by calvin and yosh. While there was no conscious decision not to integrate the code, there was perhaps an unconscious decision (if such a thing exists) that there was a better way to do things. Cheers, Dave. -- David Neary, Lyon, France E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Re: CinePaint and Film Gimp
Hi Marc, Michael, Calm it down a bit. Marc A. Lehmann wrote: On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 10:33:39AM -0500, Michael J. Hammel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Obviously I did my homework better than you for example. No, I don't hate boards. I hate people who argue unfarily (like you, this is not the first ad hominem argument). Can't you just keep to non-personal arguments? I think that you're probably more guilty of going ad hominem in here Marc. That said, both of ye are going to wake the children. No one is going to get the rights to the code if its under the GPL. It's called copyright, and the GPL is based on it. Please do a little research on that topic and you'll see that you are wrong. It was made clear at camp that many coders weren't prepared to hand over copyright, no-one can force them to, I wouldn't ask them to. And having a steering committee or a board or whatever you want to call it wouldn't change that. This sounds like FUD. Yes, because you don't understand the GPL and how it works, it seems. Also, it's not me who is constantly spreading FUD here, but you :( Actually, it did sound like fud. The implication was Board = you sign over copyright on your code. This is not the case. You now seem to be saying Board + GPL = you sign over your copyright, and that's incorrect too. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you though. Well, you are mixing up board, foundation, central authority all the time. It's difficult to argue with somebody who constantly changes his propositions. central authority is quite a different concept as board is, for example. Actually, Michale seems to be implying that a board/steering committee would be a central authority and a face on the project. I think this is correct. You are saying that this type of central authority might not be desirable. I think you're probably right too, certainly with respect to several of the current developers. For me, foundation and board are the same thing - the foundation is the organisation, the board are its elected representatives. That board can have as much or as little responsibility as its members decide. It can also evolve to fill needs as they arise. That is why we decided to create the gimp foundation and elect a board (as a public face to the gimp), while at the same time having rules sufficiently wide that the board could eventually, if it were felt reasonable, be a steering committee for the project, or ake release schedules, etc. But that was not the intention when creating the foundation, and any such change would probably need to be debated at a conference. I'll bring the boxing gloves. By lighting the fire of interest in the non-technical community that often sparks motivation and interest in the project itself. Well, at least in the case of the gimp, interest is extremely high in the non-technical community, in case you missed that. And again: how does that help the developers? As you said earlier, Marc, XFree is losing developers, and new ones aren't coming in. I think that a few of the ideas we had at camp which are now being put in place will help with that, but we also need more people involved in the project. More non-technical people means more time for the technical people to do other stuff. It also means more future technical people, as the non-techs start working and get a bit braver :) Well, that works fine. Remember the big discussion about the 2.0 version number exactly because directions and plans on development _have_ been known outside the dveeloper community? Actually, most of that discussion stayed inside the developer community. The fact that there was a fight was bigger news than the version change itself. This is exactly what is wrong about the idea. A foundation (like the one that is planned), as a mere instrument to collect money, maybe do publicity or similar tasks, is quite fine. It's when people want to take the power away from the developers where I say no. A steering committee (which is what we all seem to be talking about, albeit with different names) is usually developer driven. It would not make sense to have it any other way, as you rightly say. If we look at gnome, there are several committees - the foundation board, the release team, the web team, the i18n project, the bugsquad, all of whom have their own domain of knowledge and competency The foundation board benefits developers by keeping all the organisational crap out of their way, the release team by creating and sticking to a release schedule, and forcing all the sub-projects to do the same, and so on. In each of these teams, people come and go, but the team goes on. That's the benefit of a team. Perhaps if the GIMP oriented itself a little more towards this idea of sub-teams with responsibility, we would not have so much reliance on one or two core individuals. And perhaps that would benefit the developers. Cheers, Dave. -- David Neary, Lyon, France E-Mail: [EMAIL
Re: [Gimp-user] Re: CinePaint and Film Gimp
Interesting comments Marc. Unfortunately, I couldn't disagree with you more. On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 20:58, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We should also consider that xfree86 currently falls aparts exactly because of the board (and wrecks for quite some time already). Interesting, if clouded, view of this situation. The board (which is actually made up of the core developers) has been closed minded about its development efforts in the past. The recent turmoil was a way of letting fresh air into the process. The board remains. XFree86 remains. Advances continue. Exactly where has XFree86 fallen apart? Did you discuss your opinion with any of the core developers or are you just stating the opinion without gathering any facts on the situation first? And many other projects live fine without boards, too. And some live fine with them. KDE, GNOME and Debian come to mind. They don't appear to be falling apart either having established definitive goals, target audiences, rules for interaction with outside vendors or even *gasp* establishing release schedules. GCC (one of the largest free software projects) did fine, too, for a very long time. Indeed it has. Of course, it does have the Free Software Foundation (and no less than Stallman himself) as a guiding force behind it. But I guess that doesn't count as a board in your opinion. Apache probably has less problems because they try very hard not do decide things over the heads of other people. If by this you mean the board doesn't try to snatch control away from the developers then that's probably true. In fact, that's what a guiding board should do - offer guidance on direction. If the developers remain open minded, they'll consider that guidance seriously. In Apache's case, it appears to work. Boards are a concept alien to free software projects, since boards work like we decide, you do the work, which might work in corporate structures, but doesn't work at all in free software environments. You see the world as black and white, Marc. Not all boards are so manipulative. But there are many projects who could use an authoritative voice to keep the project moving. Miguel was such a force for GNOME, and that project (even without a board, but with an authoritative figure at its helm) has done quite well. doesn't work at all in free software environments isn't even close to the truth here. You sound like you speak more from hate of anything that smells of authority than from research of the facts. As for boards being alien to free software, well, I've given a number of examples to the contrary. There are many more. Non-profit organizations are, on the other hand, often seperated from the project itself (esp. for the Gimp, as the developers feel afaics strongly against handing over the rights to the code to such an organization, which means it would have no rights at all to the gimp). No one is going to get the rights to the code if its under the GPL. This sounds like FUD. But developers may feel disinclined to handing over the direction and control of the *project* (not the code itself) to another group or individual. That's a fair feeling considering the efforts the developers have given to this point. Because of this, any authoritative leadership must have the support of the developers group or it wouldn't be of any use. If the GIMP developers are happy without such leadership, then there really isn't any point in trying to establish one. It is my assertion that such leadership is missing and would help extend GIMP's value to both the developers and the user community. Please note that when I say leadership is missing I say that with Sven's acknowledgment that he is not the central authority and that such central authority does not exist. I do not mean to imply that the work Sven and the others have done to this point was without value. To the contrary: The GIMP developers have done very well without central authority. I feel they can do even better with it. Recently I hear a lot about target audience and have to work with the industry and similar ideas. You'll hear a lot more as open source catches on in the real world. In my opinion, this has exactly zero relevance. And you are entitled to your opinion, no matter how far removed from reality it might be. The question to ask is: how would a board/non-profit-org help the _developers_. By lighting the fire of interest in the non-technical community that often sparks motivation and interest in the project itself. Getting the word out about the GIMP and it's plans and direction (and having helped establish both) may help bring in new developers, which in turn *could* (but is not guaranteed, of course) help to speed the process of development. It could also generate funding for hardware. Perhaps even small scholarships for students participating in the project. Most importantly (in my opinion, which is worth as much as your own), it can help
Re: [Gimp-user] Re: CinePaint and Film Gimp
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 10:33:39AM -0500, Michael J. Hammel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 20:58, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We should also consider that xfree86 currently falls aparts exactly because of the board (and wrecks for quite some time already). Interesting, if clouded, view of this situation. I think I have a very clear view of the innards of xfree86. The board (which is actually made up of the core developers) Was. Just ask them. The president abused his unlimited power to silence everybody and expell most core developers from the board. letting fresh air into the process. The board remains. XFree86 remains. Advances continue. Exactly where has XFree86 fallen apart? Well, I can't argue with you, sicne you are supposing something about the future, on which I disagree. xfree86 is falling apart because developers leave it and no fresh blood is joining. Did you discuss your opinion with any of the core developers or are you just stating the opinion without gathering any facts on the situation first? As a matter of fact I discussed it with quite a few current and previous board members and core developers. I think it's pretty representative. XFree86 might be somewhat exceptional, as a single person holds all the power, but if you look around, that is how boards work usually. And some live fine with them. KDE, GNOME and Debian come to mind. They don't appear to be falling apart either having established definitive goals, target audiences, rules for interaction with outside vendors or even *gasp* establishing release schedules. However, there is a distinctive difference there: There is no need to negotiate with the industry. And since this is your original idea behind a board, these boards are pretty irrelevant. Even worse, you could at least have made your homework and look wether these projects even have a board. That's not the case, so I guess your agrument is (again) not backed up by facts. It doesn't help you to accuse me of not basing my opinions on fact, and I think that's pretty low of you. GCC (one of the largest free software projects) did fine, too, for a very long time. Indeed it has. Of course, it does have the Free Software Foundation (and no less than Stallman himself) as a guiding force behind it. But I That's just plain bullshit (sorry, but what are you trying to achieve with spreading such misinformation??). It's you who is making claims that are badly researched and shed a bad light on what you say. The guiding force behind gcc is purely the developer community. Even if you take the steering committee (which has power and says it guides), it only does so when the community can't make a decision. Neither of these is the FSF. The FSF has absolute power over gcc (the name), but as history has shown, it doesn't have power over gcc (the project). The current state of gcc is *exactly* the result of a board (of the FSF in this case) trying to force decisions. guess that doesn't count as a board in your opinion. Of course not, because it isn't a board. That is independend of my opinion, but a fact. Why do you get this personal? [apache] If by this you mean the board doesn't try to snatch control away from the developers then that's probably true. That's what I meant, yes. Boards are a concept alien to free software projects, since boards work like we decide, you do the work, which might work in corporate structures, but doesn't work at all in free software environments. You see the world as black and white, Marc. Not all boards are so manipulative. Well, if a board doesn't have any power, there is no need to create one in the first place. It serves no purpose if it cannot do anything. But there are many projects who could use an authoritative voice to keep the project moving. That is exactly the problem: an authoritative voice. Gimp already has authoritative voices. If your assumption is that authoritative voices and boards are the same thing, then you are mistaken. And if you think that boards and auth. voices are not the same thing, then it has nothing to do with this discussion. In other words: boards are not necessarily autoritative voices, and you don't need boards to have that. What _are_ your arguments for such an institution? for GNOME, and that project (even without a board, but with an authoritative figure at its helm) has done quite well. So that proves that boards aren't necessary, right? Boards are not even necessarily productive for a project. doesn't work at all in free software environments isn't even close to the truth here. Well, I disagree. The only counterexamples are boards without any power or voice. I wouldn't oppose those and agree they work fine with free software projects. You sound like you speak more from hate of anything that smells of authority than from research of the facts. Obviously I did my homework better than you for example. No, I don't hate boards.
Re: [Gimp-user] Re: CinePaint and Film Gimp
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 03:09:32PM -0500, Michael J. Hammel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: XFree86, Apache, and others all formed boards and/or non-profits to help deal with the situation. I believe its time the GIMP community seriously considered this as well. We should also consider that xfree86 currently falls aparts exactly because of the board (and wrecks for quite some time already). And many other projects live fine without boards, too. GCC (one of the largest free software projects) did fine, too, for a very long time. Apache probably has less problems because they try very hard not do decide things over the heads of other people. Boards are a concept alien to free software projects, since boards work like we decide, you do the work, which might work in corporate structures, but doesn't work at all in free software environments. Non-profit organizations are, on the other hand, often seperated from the project itself (esp. for the Gimp, as the developers feel afaics strongly against handing over the rights to the code to such an organization, which means it would have no rights at all to the gimp). Recently I hear a lot about target audience and have to work with the industry and similar ideas. In my opinion, this has exactly zero relevance. The question to ask is: how would a board/non-profit-org help the _developers_. One can create boards as much as one likes, this won't change nor create a single line of code or code-change. And if it doesn't help the people who write the code (e.g. by getting specifications or the like), then I don't see why such a thing should be founded in the first place. So what are the benefits of a board for the developers? How would that help them? How would such a board counter the frustration on the side of developers that a board exists that has power but no obilgations? Where does it get it's rights from? Who has to submit to it's decisions? How is it elected (if at all)? -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | | ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Re: CinePaint and Film Gimp
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 01:40:12PM -0700, Daniel Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: with as well - how to take a loosely organized group and work with outside, commercial groups who have more strict rules for interaction. XFree86, Apache, and others all formed boards and/or non-profits to help deal with the situation. I believe its time the GIMP community seriously considered this as well. it is not mearly being considered. It is happening. I disagree, and think both of you are not talking about the same thing. I know a not-for-profit organization (with no rights to the gimp) is being created, however, that is very far from taking a loosely organized group and work with commercial groups. The planned organization does not take the gimp group to do anything, as far as I can see. -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | | ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Re: CinePaint and Film Gimp
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ( Marc) (A.) (Lehmann ) wrote: | On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 01:40:12PM -0700, Daniel Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | |with as well - how to take a loosely organized group and work with |outside, commercial groups who have more strict rules for interaction. |XFree86, Apache, and others all formed boards and/or non-profits to help |deal with the situation. I believe its time the GIMP community |seriously considered this as well. | | | |it is not mearly being considered. It is happening. | | | I disagree, and think both of you are not talking about the same thing. hmm, I agree with you, if your intrepretation of Mr. Hammel's words are correct. | I know a not-for-profit organization (with no rights to the gimp) is being | created, however, that is very far from taking a loosely organized group | and work with commercial groups. The planned organization does not take | the gimp group to do anything, as far as I can see. Yes, you are right. - -- Dan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE/ZnT/ad4P1+ZAZk0RAqB8AJ4/C7vKcsPcnzL7QZjvRQmw2L8T1ACcCsbW b3YlZEGetOd8OdENMtZmMbU= =+Ws6 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Re: CinePaint and Film Gimp
Michael J. Hammel wrote: The problem here is one that other open source projects have had to deal with as well - how to take a loosely organized group and work with outside, commercial groups who have more strict rules for interaction. XFree86, Apache, and others all formed boards and/or non-profits to help deal with the situation. I believe its time the GIMP community seriously considered this as well. it is not mearly being considered. It is happening. -- Daniel Rogers ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
[Gimp-user] Re: CinePaint and Film Gimp
Robin Rowe wrote: Although none of our developers are hackers, nice to hear you think highly of some of us. hmm, you don't have a single programmer who is working on FilmGimp because he enjoys it? if you do, you probably have a hacker on your team. Hacker in the original MIT definition, not the media corroupted version. What bothered you and other GIMP developers so much about Film Gimp that in 2000 you unexpectedly discarded three man-years of your own work funded at substantial expense by the motion picture industry? Noone who was making leadership decisions around then liked the gimp-1.0 codebase. I cannot answer more specificly than to tell you the best explanation I have recieved is that the old maintainers of Film Gimp understoond, this is not how we want to do things, with you suck, go away. Some feelings got hurt. Some people left, and there was a lot of unncecssary bad blood that could have been cured with a little more diplomacy. In 1998 Film Gimp was an official development branch of GIMP CVS, much like GEGL is today. not exactly. Gegl is a seperate project and gegl will never contain gui code. It will only be the image processing engine for the existing Gimp codebase. There's no discussion in the GIMP mailing list archives regarding the reasons leading up to that big decision in 2000, in fact, very little public discussion of any kind regarding Film Gimp that I can find. Why is that? Likely because it just fell of the map. This isn't necessarlly because someone wrote here there be dragons over it. There could have been poor communication and some hurt feelings. That would have been enough to drive away a maintainer or two. Regardless of what went on in the past, the question comes often enough for me to conclude that nearly every major gimp developer would like to see some kind of merge from the CinePaint people. As far as I can tell though, you simply have no interest in working with us, so I don't forsee this happening. And please don't misunderstand. These people don't think what you are doing to be wrong or bad. Quite the opposite. Any interest generated in the movie industry for open source can only help all of us. Most of us just hate to see a large duplication of effort. Perhaps more significantly, there are several of us still around that remember with not so fond memories, what it was like to work on the gimp-1.0 code base. I know from personal conversation that almost all complaints mentioned on this list about Film Gimp are meant in this context. I for one, and more than a few others, would really like to see CinePaint and Gimp working together again. I am not even neccsarially suggesting a complete merge. Sven and Mitch have done a really good job refactoring the gui stuff into objects. So good, in fact, (please correct me if I am wrong) that I am willing to bet that CinePaint and the Gimp could share a very significant chunk of the internal gui api's, without interfering with each other. (we could even factor this stuff into an external project, Extended GTK, if you will). And I happen to remember you mentioning that you don't think what we are doing with the compositing engine is the best way to go. However, porting the internal gui stuff to whatever compositing engine you are using now will only help us, since we need to do the same thing when gegl comes around anyway. Every time Cinepaint gets mentioned the divide between the CinePaint crew and the Gimp crew gets worse. This needs to change or people must give up on the idea of a merge. This change will only happen when people stop trying to figure out who to blame for the split and start trying to encourge a merge. Robin, do you want to see more overlap between the Gimp and Cinepaint projects? 'Cause if you don't, someone who wants to see the merge happen needs to volunteer for the job, otherwise this goes nowhere. -- Daniel Rogers ___ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
