Marc,
don't take this too personally, it is not and was never meant to be!
> > I won't unless someone tells us what he thinks is broken.
>
> Well, telling "us" about it didn't help in the past, so why should it now?
> "us" should mean "the script-fu maintainer", and not me nor you.
Well, since nobody wanted to take the job and I do like Script-Fus I
registered myself as Script-Fu maintainer a while ago. I have since then
(and before) tried to fix all Script-Fu related bugs that I knew of. Have
a look at the bug-tracking system. IIRC there's not a single open Script-Fu
bug listed there. I do however see some Perl-related bugreports, but I'm
starting to get off-topic...
> I, for example, reported that bug and how to reproduce it in minute detail
> at least 3 times (maybe even more) during the last 15 months(!).
Oops, then I must have thought it was related to the other bugs that got
fixed. I can't remember a detailed bugreport however. You should know that
to be sure that a bug gets attention and isn't forgotten there is only one
proper way to report it: use the bug-tracker on bugs.gnome.org.
> If you look through the archives of gimp-developers and gimp-users you
> will find that this bug is being reported quite regularly.
I don't read gimp-users, sorry!
> So yes, I do not believe that script-fu will work in 1.2. I also believe
> that script-fu needs a real maintainer who cares for it, not somebody like
> you who should better do other things.
Ehhh, I hope you didn't meant to say what I read out of this sentence...
I really don't know what bug you are talking about actually, so please, would
you take the time to file a proper bugreport?
Salut, Sven
