On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 08:18:44PM +0200, Sven Neumann wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 11:36 -0600, Scott wrote: > > > Just curious, what would be so wrong with saving the original file as > > a backup before doing a destructive save? Emacs only bites me when I'm > > *really* stupid.... > > There's nothing wrong with that. It's even on the list of things that > the file plug-in library should have. The file plug-in library we would > like to port all our file plug-ins to. If you are so much interested in > this, perhaps want to offer your help with this task? Well, if I had any development skills, I'd be more than happy to do so. I used to enjoy writing code for totally text-based programs under cpm and msdos, and still write some for linux, but graphics-based programming is a bit beyond me. I tried once to compile the Gimp from SVN and failed miserably, so I doubt I'd be a good candidate, though certainly would be willing to help. > > > I am so glad that Guillermo stuck by his guns and apparently *finally* > > got the developers to realise the illogic of this "feature". If more > > of us users would be as persistent instead of just going away after > > the initial knee-jerk "you don't know enough to even be talking to us" > > response which seems too prevalent here, maybe the Gimp would become > > all that it can be. > > If more users would be so persistent, as you call it, then there would > probably not a single developer left who would feel that developing GIMP > is fun. There would probably be noone who would be willing to spend > his/her free time on it. As I perceived the thread, Guillermo's approach would not take the fun out of anything. He merely was pointing out a serious problem with the way Gimp implements the 'save' as regards jpeg files; something a developer probably never thought of, but something with serious adverse consequences to a normal user. > > I don't see the point in your mail. We listened to Guillermo and his > issue was addressed in almost no time. It was absolutely not needed to > stick to any guns. And it did eventually get addressed, but only after an attempted brush-off or two. Read the thread. > > We are working very hard to finally get 2.4 out and because we are > taking this very seriously, we are in this pre-release mode for a long > time already. It would help a lot if we could concentrate on the > important things now which is to bring out GIMP 2.4. The users could > finally benefit from the hard work the developers have put into GIMP > over the last years. Perhaps than the users would finally realise that a > lot is happening to make GIMP better and easier to use. > Don't get me wrong, we users *do* obviously appreciate all of the work you guys do, or we wouldn't be using the program on a daily basis. It's just that we often get the perception that when any suggestion is made on this list that something isn't quite working as it should, there is a "we know better than you do" attitude. I'm sure it isn't intentional? > Can we settle this now and get back to work? Thanks. > Fine by me. Scott Swanson _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
