Marc, don't take this too personally, it is not and was never meant to be! > > I won't unless someone tells us what he thinks is broken. > > Well, telling "us" about it didn't help in the past, so why should it now? > "us" should mean "the script-fu maintainer", and not me nor you. Well, since nobody wanted to take the job and I do like Script-Fus I registered myself as Script-Fu maintainer a while ago. I have since then (and before) tried to fix all Script-Fu related bugs that I knew of. Have a look at the bug-tracking system. IIRC there's not a single open Script-Fu bug listed there. I do however see some Perl-related bugreports, but I'm starting to get off-topic... > I, for example, reported that bug and how to reproduce it in minute detail > at least 3 times (maybe even more) during the last 15 months(!). Oops, then I must have thought it was related to the other bugs that got fixed. I can't remember a detailed bugreport however. You should know that to be sure that a bug gets attention and isn't forgotten there is only one proper way to report it: use the bug-tracker on bugs.gnome.org. > If you look through the archives of gimp-developers and gimp-users you > will find that this bug is being reported quite regularly. I don't read gimp-users, sorry! > So yes, I do not believe that script-fu will work in 1.2. I also believe > that script-fu needs a real maintainer who cares for it, not somebody like > you who should better do other things. Ehhh, I hope you didn't meant to say what I read out of this sentence... I really don't know what bug you are talking about actually, so please, would you take the time to file a proper bugreport? Salut, Sven
