> Anyway, there is no point at all in pointing out how important such a > change would be. Several people have tried to improve the downscaling > quality over the last two years. Do you seriously suggest that we wait > another two years with GIMP 2.4? I'm reading my previous comments and I can't find the part where I suggest such thing. I'm trying to say that if this version took 2.4 years of development, it would be a pitty if all the new stuff come together with this long time issue. > So unless you have a patch that we can > apply immidiately, this discussion is pointless. > Thanks for remembering me how pointless are my suggestions. Again. iirc you complained about my "agressive tone" few days ago when I posted about the jpeg quality. But you don't hesitate if yu have to use this harsh tone with others. I'm polite enough and won't respond with the same sledgehammer charm, luckily. I'll be back in a couple of years, when I'll be able to create a patch. Maybe you'll show some respect then. > There are scripts available for scaling down in several steps. Just use > them. > You're absolutely right. This discussion is pointless. If you suggest that a script for scaling down in several steps is a valid solution you know as much about image manipulation as I do about coding. So don't waste each other's time. I'd be happy if you choose to listen to the users, even if they can't make a patch. But since the first time I was here, I see the same: every suggestion a user makes, you almost call him stupid. Please read your reply and David Gower's one. Can you see the difference? Is it so difficult for you to be more polite? I'm out of here. _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
