That said, see above for why they might not be motivated to do so given their efforts will still result in negotiations.Īnd for home users, just face it, 99% pirate the software. If the coder submits something in the wrong language, that is badly designed, &/or is buggy - he/she is the one with the onus to fix it (or another developer who desires it to step up). So right now it is really up to sigtech if (s)he is prepared to make it an upstream project, work on UI with Peter etc. I’m not trying to be a pain and I am being as polite as I can about this.Īmong GIMP developers we currently have noone with spare time to help porting the brush engine. Honest question - can you see why this looks bad? “Even if you code in the language we state, implementing a feature users want, and it looks OK - you still need to negotiate with us before we’ll allow your feature”. If not, why does it mean that it is still up for negotiation?
Gimps status Patch#
Why should the guy rewrite it if the outcome of a C-code patch that looks OK is still resulting in a “negotiable” status? If there are other requirements, lay them out. That said, the “then patching upstream is negotiable” line is somewhat ominous. It is not a GEGL issue as was earlier alluded to, but quite valid. This is a technical / management issue that makes perfect sense.
I completely understand the C++ vs C issue. If the code is rewritten into C and looks OK, then patching upstream is negotiable. Fortunately the guy who did the port doesn’t like C++ much either, so there is hopeīasically we want to see what shape this project will take next. Plus the quality of that code is not very good. The code right now is in C++, and for GIMP this is a no go. The fact that it is being pursued is a positive sign. Well, it is a sign of developer engagement with users. So, people had been asking about the future of the mypaint brush engine port, telling how it’s a sign of this and that etc.
0 kommentar(er)
