> On another note, I'm not sure this is a desirable goal. splitting > stuff off feels an awful lot like putting it out to pasture. The
that does seem like a valid risk to consider > goal of just having the core application, with no plug-ins, no > image data structures, no scripts, and a minimum number of brushes, > patterns and gradients doesn't seem to be the direction that > people want to see the GIMP taking, from what I can tell. I think a lot more of the patterns really should be moved to gimp-data-extras (there are three different types of wood included in the basic patterns, one should really be enough in the base) so that those who want less will have less and those who want more will realise that they should install gimp-data-extras and get a lot more. > People would like more brushes, more patterns, more gradients, with > the ability to delete the ones they don't use/like, and more > scripts/plug-ins with a way to organise the menus according to > the ones they use most often. I do think users want this but I do not think users care how it is achieved. Things can be split into seperate packages but the real problem occurs when distributions do not fully realise the intention was only to modularlize not to remove the features and that they should install it _all_ unless they have a really good reason for doing otherwise. Some of us are at the mercy of systems adminstrators who install only the default packages. > I know that you believe that we should work on the core > application and a few plug-ins, and leave most of the plug-in > development to 3rd party plug-in maintainers, I'm not sure I > agree. I think that we should be almost promiscuous in what we > accept into CVS, but equally vicious in removing things from CVS > when they become unmaintaned. I think that most people don't want > to have to install several packages, they want to install the > GIMP, and automatically get plug-ins like gap, refocus, and even > DBP. I would like to think that all these things would be installed by defualt on most distributions, that the users would have to specifically opt out if they didn't want the extras (and distributions like Knoppix would have to strike a careful balance on what they leave out) > Note that I'm not saying that all this should happen for 2.2, but > I am speaking to the general goal of a lean, mean GIMPing machine > versus an application which comes with everything including the > kitchen sink, which you can modify to your own usage patterns, > buut which has sufficiently sane defaults as to not have a huge > complicated menu structure at the same time. Maybe I'm foolishly optomistic to think that we could have both a small seperable core but have everything and the kitchen sink nicely packaged so that the developers can get on with things with the minimum of fuss and users can still have it all. - Alan _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
