Hi Robin,
Robin Rowe wrote:
> Should I feel flattered that GIMP can't stop talking about me and CinePaint,
> even when it is to spread the misconception that CinePaint is GIMP 1.0?
Please don't jump to any conclusions here which might deepen any
ill-feeling that has developer between the programs.
There was a mail about guadec. You were a keynote speaker at
guadec last year. The person who replied to that mail did so in a
personal capacity. And yes, she is misinformed - the 1.2 branch
was merged into the HOLLYWOOD branch when it stabilised.
> GIMP people have demonstrated a persistent interest in expressing their
> opinion about CinePaint and giving me unsought advice since I became the
> CinePaint project leader in 2002.
If I were being objective, I would say that there was
inappropriate behaviour on both sides. Certainly, making a point
of disparaging either project, or saying things which could be
construed as confrontational, does not help.
Good luck on accomplishing the issues on your roadmap - we share
many objectives (colour management, "deep paint", colourspaces)
although it appears that architecturally we're diverging. I am
wondering how you plan to achieve those goals, but I'm sure we'll
get the chance to talk about that again.
And then...
> He did not accomplish
> his employer's mandate to build and release deep paint as a feature in
> mainline GIMP.
Regardless of the basis in fact of this statement (it is arguable
that it is untrue, since filmGIMP was successfully merged with
what was then the latest stable version of the GIMP), its intent
is obviously to annoy some people.
> Sven Neumann has said on this list that
> he is offended because we have never sought his advice in how to implement
> CinePaint.
I think that's probably a misrepresentation. I do recall Sven
saying that he felt that the development effort being spent on
Cinepaint would be better spent working towards those same goals
with the GIMP. That's hardly the same thing, though.
> To put it bluntly, you haven't said what you guys are doing for long term
> vision. Besides 16-bit deep paint, is there anything you have planned that
> could match CinePaint?
>
> Does GIMP have a long term roadmap?
Personally I think that experience has shown us that a short-term
roadmap and a medium-term roadmap is about as far ahead as is
valuable.
In my mind, the priority for the GIMP now is to play catch-up to
Photoshop. I don't see us as a competitor of Maya, or Shake. Some
day, perhaps. But I think we will have deep paint in 18 months,
and I can justofy that estimate. I think we will have a
compositing UI and a new rendering motor in 2 years. I think that
we will have more colourspaces around then too. Our goals are
perhaps not as ambitious as yours, but I think they are
attainable in the near future.
> GIMP advocates suggest that CinePaint is fundamentally
> flawed...
> GIMP advocates suggest that GIMP developers should resent
> duplication of effort...
> GIMP advocates suggest that CinePaint is a temporary stopgap...
Who are these GIMP advocates? I don't think it's helpful to
generalise like this Robin. For my part, I disagree with some of
the design decisions you have made (moving towards a GTK+ 1.4,
for example), but I recognise that it's your right to make those
decisions. I don't think the project is fundamentally flawed, and
I do think that Cinepaint will find it hard to make a place for
itself in the Linux raster editor "market" once the GIMP is using
gegl.
> ...expected to occur at some unspecified date.
As we agreed at GIMPCon last Summer, we are working towards an
integration of gegl this Summer. The discussions on how that
integration should happen have already started (see threads on
gegl-developer recently). And we even have a testbed compositing
application for gegl in the works (thanks to Oyvind Kolas) called
Bauxite, which is looking quite nifty at the moment.
> The software we seek to surpass is Photoshop.
As I have said, that is also our target. With all due respect, I
believe we are moving closer to that target, faster, than
Cinepaint.
> GIMP advocates say they hope that CinePaint will cease to exist.
> GIMP advocates who have never had any relationship to me are telling me that
> I owe them labor and should do as they say.
I really hope that you will understand that this kind of mail
from either you or from a GIMP developer is not helpful. As Alan
Horkan so wisely asked, "can't we all just get along?" (what is
it about the Irishmen anyway?).
I think that it is clear to everyone involved that
Cinepaiont/GIMP is not a simple fork, that it is a new team
taking over an abandoned developmnet branch. And as such, there
will never be a merge of the projects.
I believe that at some stage in the future we will share some
things - perhaps a file format, or a plug-in API, or in some way
allow people outside both our projects to use the best bits out
of each core. In the meantime, there is really no point in trying
to stoke a flamewar.
Regards,
Dave.
--
David Neary,
Lyon, France
E-Mail: bolsh@xxxxxxxx
