Re: [Gimp-developer] contribution processes...

I have now given the whole thing a big push: not complete yet, but a start. --ps founder + principal interaction architect man + machine interface works http://blog.mmiworks.net: on interaction architectur

Re: [Gimp-developer] contribution processes...

On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 3:33 AM, peter sikking said: maybe this exactly demonstrates the sizeable gap there is between > the people that can, and do, contribute, and users and other observers. > the points listed there are about minimum decent software engineering, > thus to software engineers it i

Re: [Gimp-developer] contribution processes...

let's pick up this discussion again, sorry for the delay. Saul Goode wrote: > In my opinion the language of the draft is not very inviting to contribution. the draft is a _description_ of the current code process, not a manual/invitation page for new contributors. it describes how things are in

[Gimp-developer] contribution processes...

I apologize for the double-post; my mail system barfed and apparently sent a draft version of my post. Here is a more refined version. In my opinion the language of the draft is not very inviting to contribution. At minimum, each of the "has to"s should be changed to either "should"s or "should

[Gimp-developer] contribution processes...

In my opinion the language of the draft is not inviting to contribution. At minimum, each of the "has to"s should be changed to either "should"s or "should strive to"s. Also, it is unclear whether the final "does not have to be perfect" trumps any or all of the previous seven bullet points -- if

Re: [Gimp-developer] contribution processes...

Øyvind wrote: > On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 6:46 PM, peter sikking wrote: >> I like to discuss it here on this mailing list and get it >> in a shape that is beyond reasonable doubt. after that the >> next steps can be taken. > > A final step that is missing in your list is: “When the number of high

Re: [Gimp-developer] contribution processes...

On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 6:46 PM, peter sikking wrote: > I have given it a first stab: > > > > I like to discuss it here on this mailing list and get it > in a shape that is beyond reasonable doubt. after that the > next steps can be taken.

Re: [Gimp-developer] contribution processes...

Am 13.05.2012 15:15, schrieb peter sikking: > yahvuu wrote: > >> some food for thought from the mozilla folks who have a proud track record >> of successful open design: > > I am not that familiar with the mozilla processes (although do I > know the guys from the agency Silver Orange who are/wer

Re: [Gimp-developer] contribution processes...

> > I really have no special opinion on that. I am, however, concerned > about "People can propose patch for the spec without need to have an > account." -- that smells like a welcome sign to spammers. And that's, > as far as I can tell, the only reason we have user registration by > request at wik

Re: [Gimp-developer] contribution processes...

On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Michael Muré wrote: > I completed the "How to port" section in the wiki Thanks a ton! :) I think we'll still need more technical info, but that's probably for another page. The matrix also has to be enhanced, but I'll take care of that in a while. > I have a sugg

Re: [Gimp-developer] contribution processes...

On 05/13/2012 06:15 AM, peter sikking wrote: yes, already thinking how the new process will integrate with bugzilla is useful. however I want to avoid that things needing UI design become a blocking state in bugzilla. And if it's really a blocking issue it should show up where? _

Re: [Gimp-developer] contribution processes...

On 12.05.12 at 5:45 pm Michael Muré wrote: I completed the "How to port" section in the wiki. Great! Now it should be even easier. Best regards, grafxuser ___ gimp-developer-list mailing list gimp-developer-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailma

Re: [Gimp-developer] contribution processes...

I completed the "How to port" section in the wiki. I have a suggestion, what about using a Git based wiki like Gollum ( https://github.com/github/gollum) to host the UI specifications ? This is the wiki system used on Github. It works the same as a classic wiki, but all the data are stored in a Gi

Re: [Gimp-developer] contribution processes...

yahvuu wrote: > some food for thought from the mozilla folks who have a proud track record of > successful open design: I am not that familiar with the mozilla processes (although do I know the guys from the agency Silver Orange who are/were simply contracted to design mozilla software, all of i

Re: [Gimp-developer] contribution processes...

Hi Alexandre, On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 10:40 AM, gfxuser wrote: Another dawn of hope is the GEGL porting matrix. AFAIK most of GIMP is ported to GEGL, but there are still some open 'easy to do' tasks - the best start for beginners. The matrix starts with the chapter 'How to port' - which is emp

Re: [Gimp-developer] contribution processes...

Am 12.05.2012 18:46, schrieb peter sikking: > lately I have been thinking about introducing a new process. Dear all, some food for thought from the mozilla folks who have a proud track record of successful open design: bugzilla keywords like 'uiwanted' may be useful. Complete list available her

Re: [Gimp-developer] contribution processes...

On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 10:40 AM, gfxuser wrote: > Another dawn of hope is the GEGL porting matrix. AFAIK most of GIMP is > ported to GEGL, but there are still some open 'easy to do' tasks - the best > start for beginners. The matrix starts with the chapter 'How to port' - > which is empty. How i

Re: [Gimp-developer] contribution processes...

gfxuser wrote: > I also read your stab. First of all, I'm a friend of acting ordered and high > code quality, too. > Some thoughts of mine: > 1. Yet I haven't found out whether this draft is for 'interaction design > patches' (whatever this could mean) or for code patches at all. What exactly >

Re: [Gimp-developer] contribution processes...

I agree with a lot of this. My impression on reading the 'first stab' was that is was more an attempt to stop people "interfering" than to encourage potential contributors to get involved in Gimp. Indeed I found 'brainstorm' to be similar. It made it a lot of work to make a suggestion a

Re: [Gimp-developer] contribution processes...

On 05/13/12 08:40, gfxuser wrote: Hi, I also read your stab. First of all, I'm a friend of acting ordered and high code quality, too. Some thoughts of mine: 1. Yet I haven't found out whether this draft is for 'interaction design patches' (whatever this could mean) or for code patches at all. Wh

Re: [Gimp-developer] contribution processes...

Hi, I also read your stab. First of all, I'm a friend of acting ordered and high code quality, too. Some thoughts of mine: 1. Yet I haven't found out whether this draft is for 'interaction design patches' (whatever this could mean) or for code patches at all. What exactly do you mean? 2. The

Re: [Gimp-developer] contribution processes...

first, thanks to Guillermo for the insight and the encouraging words. then, Alexandre wrote: > "has to be easy to review and apply by the maintainer(s);" -- let's > just call it Git formatted and made against a rebased clone of the > master branch, shall we? actually that sentence about "easy to

Re: [Gimp-developer] contribution processes...

On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 8:46 PM, peter sikking wrote: > guys, > > lately I have been thinking about introducing a new process. > > this thinking has been accelerated by the GIMP bof at the lgm, > where GIMP project members expressed concern about lack of > openness and transparency in the current

Re: [Gimp-developer] contribution processes...

El 12/05/12 13:46, peter sikking escribió: I have given it a first stab: I like to discuss it here on this mailing list and get it in a shape that is beyond reasonable doubt. after that the next steps can be taken. Makes sense to me. Wi

[Gimp-developer] contribution processes...

guys, lately I have been thinking about introducing a new process. this thinking has been accelerated by the GIMP bof at the lgm, where GIMP project members expressed concern about lack of openness and transparency in the current UI redesign work, and I expressed concern about lack of valuation a