At 20:46 25.05.03 +0200, Sven Neumann wrote: >Hi, > >Hans Breuer <Hans@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> >That can surely be sorted out. >> > >> Sure it can. But you are probably developing long enough to know >> how long it takes to implement a solution you aren't convinced >> of, especially when not getting paid for it ... > >Before we started to use fontconfig directly, we checked that >fontconfig packages for win32 exist. I don't understand what issues >you could be having with it. The only thing I can imagine is that you >simply don't want to since you are not convinced. > Exactly. And by the way: instead of checking if something on win32 exist, why not simply ask ? [...] >> I don't plan to distribute it. And for a very short time I had the >> impression we were discussing the issue. But since your WONTFIX I >> have the impression that the usage of (pango)ft2 is already >> enscribed in stone. > >In my opinion we are way too close to feature freeze and release to >change the text tool design once more. > Oh, there is a text tool design ? References ? >Actually I'm a bit pissed off ... Fine, that makes two of us :-) > ... since there was a lot of time to bring >this issue up. Did you follow _one_ of the links provided in my previous mails ? Did you notice dates in them ?? I've brought up the issue of 'Pango Backend Abstraction' almost two years ago. There were some response from you a long the line of : "the current state of the Gimp Text Tool in Gimp is in no way final nor has it been designed with care. I haven't yet found the time to think about this much, but I was under the impression we could use the FT2 backend on all supported platforms." And with Heads up on Pango HEAD PangoFT2 broke. There still was a working version 1.0 but nowadays The GIMP relies on Pango 1.2. >Now that the development cycle ends, you declare that >you want things completely different than what we have been doing the >last two years. We are trying hard to make gimp-1.3 compatible with >win32 even though there is almost null feedback from you and Tor. I've got the impression that you and Mitch are thinking ChangeLog entries are enough to show design decisions. Almost any of my mail to gimp-devel list ended up with: we don't know why you want to do this or something like this. >We have to guess what your prolems are. You didn't even tell us if the >latest changes worked. I think my response time was rather good: - Your mail 23 May 2003 20:31:35 +0200 - My ChangeLog entry 2003-05-24 - The bug report from 2003-05-25 04:56 -??? And for the record: beside the issue with pangoft2 The GIMP cvs appears to work as expected (a little unstable though). >There is almost no communication between the >main GIMP developers and the people working with GIMP on Win32. I always thought I was working on GIMP on windoze instead of with. And communictaion should be bidirectional. Can't talk about people working _with_ Gimp on windoze. >This doesn't give you a good position if you want to change how we >implement things. Perhaps we could change that first. > What? I was providing a patch and you were simply dropping it as WONTFIX. So do I need to guess when you finally get to implement the long announced Texttool revamp? That's fine with me but _please_ don't complain about lack in communication skills. Hans -------- Hans "at" Breuer "dot" Org ----------- Tell me what you need, and I'll tell you how to get along without it. -- Dilbert
