Tobias Jakobs wrote:
> On Dec 6, 2007 2:10 PM, peter sikking <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> When 2.4 came out, I made a statement that that day was also the
>> end of fire brigade mode for the UI team. So can we do this in the
>> right order please:
> That is only fair and I think the results will be better this way.
>
>> 1) we decide that this issue is worth our limited resources and
>> has higher precedence than other issues (that will remain
>> unsolved);
>
> Who do you mean with "our limited resources", the UI team, the
> programmers or the complete team?
All involved in development: UI team, developers, documenters.
>> 2) we therefore put it on the road map, stating what we will tackle,
>> leaving out the ambitious stuff;
>
> Do we/you have a list with the impotents of the different issues?
I think that is a consensus thing. Also everything is connected
with the phased introduction of GEGL, which we have seen recently
makes working on some urgent issues a waste of time, because
a lot of code will be scrapped.
And yes, I understand and support that 2.6 is going to be 'light'
on UI changes, to get the phase-one GEGL work done.
> Can we use the road map for this or do we need a second list?
Let's see: a roadmap is new for GIMP, as is a structural UI
renovation project, as is a new engine. We need to get experienced
with this and better integration of all big ideas out there.
From my side I need to contribute by doing the analysis part of
our UI process and make that accessible as blog entries
(a GIMP issue a day?).
I am really looking forward to a roadmap...
--ps
founder + principal interaction architect
man + machine interface works
http://mmiworks.net/blog : on interaction architecture
_______________________________________________
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
