On 08/03/2010 10:04 PM, Charlie De wrote: > [...] For that reason I've previously proposed what to me > seems to be the cheapest solution - offer the fix as a compile option in an > incremental bug release in the stable branch. But if someone compiles from source anyway, it's probably easier to just apply the patch (well maybe not this one, but once it's halfway done). Martin made a remark on bugzilla: "Don't change the name of the legacy enums, that just complicates the patch". While I'd spontaneously agree with that, I am only now starting to realize what a bad decision it was, along with reordering them which is much worse still: I hadn't considered plug-ins at all. 'neutralizing' the enums for XCF is pretty pointless if all existing plug-ins break. Of course we could do it for plug-ins, as well, but then it should be *all* enums... ouch. So it's back to original order and naming for the legacy enums. But I'm still torn on XCF. I'd really dislike going back to writing enums to files -- but objectively, there isn't much of a point to keep it up. Rupert _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
