Hi Peter, I think it's best to not reply the the thread, because I have troubles following it myself already, and I better describe how I have experienced the UTT situation, and the unfortunate conversation with you on IRC several weeks back. During last year's GSoC, Mikachu has repeatedly approached me with problems about how to implement the specified GUI, and it was clear to both of us that there is some under-specification going on and that we simply didn't have had enough spec iterations to make it fully implementable. There was no hurry at the time, and I had really little time to attend to it, so I told him to postpone that part and instead get the internal appraratus really sound, and deal with the UI when we (Mikachu, Peter, Mitch) have had the chance to discuss the issues and get the spec updated for corner cases where is simply was not implementable as-is. The unimplementable part was that the spec didn't say what's happening for angles where your drawing wouldn't work, and it was clear that the drawing code would explode in our faces, so I decided to tell Mikachu not to do any evil hacks that couldn't be right, and leave the GUI simple until you came back. Also, there is the issue with the dialog with an infinite amount of buttons. That's simply because it was somewhat unclear how to integrate that into general image undo, and kill the dialog for good, which will clearly happen before 2.10, but we didn't see it as immediate problem because the undo/redo stuff was there, and the dialog can just be moved away as long as it exists in 2.9, and it won't be an issue in 2.10 anyway. In fact, one can simply pretend the dialog was not there and not worry about it. When you came to IRC in Feb/March I think it was, I was really excited to finally discuss this and some other open issues with you, and we had a really nice talk for like an hour or so, until I brought up the UTT. I don't know what exactly triggered the miscommunication, but what I meant to say was this: - The interaction is *completely* implemented as specified - So are the handles (not visually) - So are the constraints - So is undo/redo - We even took care of handle-specific mouse cursors that rotate along with the transform frame What is NOT implemented: - The handles are completely not as specified, because we had no clue how to implement them for extreme angles, and we were hoping for your input - The dialog is still there, which is temporary And I also had a change request for the spec: - The tool is so insanely useful, also for corrective transform and really precise working, that it would be a shame to remove the grid options. In fact, it's IMO the only usable tool now, so minus number entry for rotate/scale, there is actually not any need to have other tools. Which I meant as a compliment, because the spec, the interaction, and the constraints are totally the shit. I even used the words "I love it", that's hardly disrespect in my opinion. Now for general issues: I have thought hard about last years meeting in Vienna, and all I remember was trying to mitigate a confrontation between you and pippin, and not engaging in confrontation. You can't expect me to completely side with you when in my opinion none of you guys was completely right or wrong. Also, about GIMP sliding back from a project where good UI matters to an engineering project where we don't give a shit about interaction design... You know, that really hurts. How did that perception happen? It actually happens *all* the time that we hit a problem with the GUI, and when you are not around I miss you every time, because what are we supposed to do? Not make a change that is technically needed (remember we are in the process of completely changing the inner core of GIMP to GEGL)? Of course not. Instead, we do it as good as we can, and hope for your input when you are around next time. You might also have noticed that we're trying hard to fix issues in the specs that were implemented in the past, in particular Save/Export and single-window-mode. We take bugs serious and try to get it right, sometimes to our best knowledge in case the spec missed some corner case. And we defend the specs we have all agreed about to an insane amount of bitching, doesn't that prove our respect for your work? Also, what am I supposed to do when somebody comes with a new feature, but we have no spec for its GUI yet? I can't tell everybody to wait until there is a spec (and we do that often enough). Instead, we do our best to make it as good as possible anyway. We can't have each and every GUI change block on the actions of one single entity. tl;dr So please, can't we just put all that weird disagreement and misunderstanding behind us and work together again? I try the same, because I can tell you, I am not exactly amused about the current situation either, in particular not about the outcome of our last discussion on IRC. That has let me standing in the rain, despite my best efforts to explain the UTT situation. The abrupt end of that conversation was not what I had hoped for, and I'm most certain the same is true for you. You know how much I hate writing mail, and I'm on the 3rd page already in my editor, that should be evidence enough that I mean it ;) Regards, --Mitch _______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list gimp-developer-list@xxxxxxxxx https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
