On 11/13/2010 05:48 PM, photocomix wrote: > > >> The only thing that matters when it comes to deciding what to include >> and what not to include in GIMP is our product vision. If something >> helps us fulfil our product vision, we will keep it in GIMP 3.0. If it >> doesn't, we will remove it. / Martin > > that for what doesn't fit in the GIMP product vision > > But why wait to eliminate a plugin that doesn't fit in ANY product vision? > > > this case is crystal clear: > nobody use that plugin ,a plugin that quoting his tooltip produce ""Special effects that nobody understands" :-), > > This plugin replace all the original pixel of your photo with a abstract thingy, a "special effects", hard to define and unpredictable , ...but that always look as crap ( > > > Why carry its code in gimp 2.8 , just delete the "van-gogh-lib.c file from the code (BTW is in gimp/plug-ins/common ) would took less developer time then a further debates > > The never used van gogh filter is in gimp from 1996 and survived all debates and clean up till now You can't know for sure that no one uses this plug-in in some script somewhere, and if we don't have a good reason to break our plug-in API, we don't do it. Impatience is not a good reason :) Regards, Martin -- My GIMP Blog: http://www.chromecode.com/ "Nightly GIMP, GEGL, babl tarball builds" _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
