On Mon, 27 Mar 2006, Marc Lehmann wrote: > Subject: Re: [iso-8859-1] Déj[iso-8859-1] à vu? > (Re[iso-8859-1] : Why be cryptic? 'Xtns' should be name 'Extensions') > > On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 08:18:22PM +0100, Alan Horkan <horkana@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Personally, I am pretty much tired of all the UI/change name/cosmetic > > > games, > > > > Could more be done to allow these cosmetic changes without forks being > > necessary? > > Of course. There have been plans to separate ui from graphics core since > ancient times now, which would allow such changes in a relatively clean way. > And lots has been done, too. > > But! > > Somebody has to do the work! > > There is no way around that. > > And this is what killed such efforts in the past. > > > without needing a recompile and this was a great idea but Sven point > > blank rejected even the possibility of accepting patches which might > > rebranding easier. > > I must admit that I don't know of these incidents, but I do trust that Sven > would not reject a patch unless its incorrect and a better way exists. Sven explained his position on branding here and why patches to make the name easier to change would not be accepted: http://www.mail-archive.com/gimp-developer%40lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/msg08677.html The GIMP name is mentioned in a lot of error messages, other places where it is definately not necessary, but if I thought a patch would be considered I would start on a patch for that. (I've been reviewing the en_GB.po already recently looking at other string changes.) -- Alan _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
