On 7/28/10, David Gowers wrote: >> I suggest that implementing the improved functionality is of much higher >> priority than backwards compatibility with the old. Particularly in a >> project >> such as GIMP, where development resources are as precious as they are. > > This is an erroneous dichotomy, because a failure to preserve > backwards compatibility is itself a 'broken feature' > GIMP is the definitive loader of XCFs. Any other format, it is nice if > it supports perfectly, but hardly needed. Its own format, it MUST > support perfectly, however it achieves that. Which is why sins of the past could be pardoned by switching to XCF2 which is still in plans, afaik, no? Then GIMP could do things the right way. Alexandre Prokoudine http://libregraphicsworld.org _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
