On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 03:30:46PM +0100, Michael Schumacher wrote: > > Beyond that it's in the hands of community if they want the old > > scenario back and maintain some sort of a fork. > The performance of https://github.com/mskala/noxcf-gimp is somewhat > underwhelming, so far. It doesn't appear to be kept up, nor is it well-advertised. It'd be better to have upstream do it. > IMO we should revert back to the 2.0 look and feel, to finally fix all the > horrible changes people have been complaining about for every past major > release :) > > Seriously, if all the changes in GIMP I was initially opposed to were > reverted, the result would be something I could hardly use. I think we can see *some* logical fallacies in your argument here. Change is good. But listen to feedback as you make it. When there's a clear use case, see if you can cover it without serious detriment to the rest. -- Matthew Miller mattdm@xxxxxxxxxx <http://mattdm.org/> _______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list gimp-developer-list@xxxxxxxxx https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
