> On 27 Mar 2018, at 03:25, Jehan Pagès <jehan.marmottard@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > But right now, we are discussing paying to distribute a version of GIMP > which is barely kept alive. This is a bit doing things in the wrong order > IMO. In fact, I think this is the main point. Even in the case we do decide to pay for an account, we need to incorporate this into our build system. And I consider it more important to first get regular 2.10 builds off the ground than to produce signed binaries. [I am near having a script that completely automates the build and DMG creation. I wanted to have 2.10 DMGs available already, but unfortunately due to some family related events early this year I had to stall his work for a while. It is my intention to pick it up again now]. I voted “I don’t care”, because manually enabling the binary is in my opinion a minor nuisance to some of the other issues that need fixing. Also I don’t need this feature myself, but if the community wants to see this fixed I can look into it. regards, -kris. _______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list List address: gimp-developer-list@xxxxxxxxx List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list
