On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 8:47 PM, Charlie De wrote:

Why?? Rupert Weber finished this last September and you promised it would be in 2.8. Is this how you show respect for the most stellar effort by a new talent? Shame, truly, shame on you. It's now been 5 years since the issue was first reported, you're going to add another year even though the work is done. That is, if you don't break your promise again. Where's your integrity?

This is very sad.

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 10:28 PM, Jacek Poplawski wrote:

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 8:47 PM, Charlie De wrote:

Why?? Rupert Weber finished this last September and you promised it would be in 2.8. Is this how you show respect for the most stellar effort by a new talent? Shame, truly, shame on you. It's now been 5 years since the issue was first reported, you're going to add another year even though the work is done. That is, if you don't break your promise again. Where's your integrity?

This is very sad.

I am not among the people working on GIMP itself - in the context of GIMP is primarily do work on GEGL - but I can tell both of you that this type of email does not serve to motivate any developer. At best they ignore it; at worst they get discouraged and decide that spending some of their spare time contributing to the common good/free software/GIMP is not worth it.

/Øyvind Kolås

«The future is already here. It's just not very evenly distributed»
                                                 -- William Gibson
http://pippin.gimp.org/                            http://ffii.org/
_______________________________________________
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 11:20:14PM +0000, Øyvind Kolås wrote:

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 10:28 PM, Jacek Poplawski wrote:

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 8:47 PM, Charlie De wrote:

Why?? Rupert Weber finished this last September and you promised it would be in 2.8. Is this how you show respect for the most stellar effort by a new talent? Shame, truly, shame on you. It's now been 5 years since the issue was first reported, you're going to add another year even though the work is done. That is, if you don't break your promise again. Where's your integrity?

This is very sad.

I am not among the people working on GIMP itself - in the context of GIMP is primarily do work on GEGL - but I can tell both of you that this type of email does not serve to motivate any developer. At best they ignore it; at worst they get discouraged and decide that spending some of their spare time contributing to the common good/free software/GIMP is not worth it.

interesting, this because when GIMP was being developed by many people seemingly happily so, it was the quality of the patch or plug-in or the script, not the flavor of the ass-kissing or the style of the request.

it is the left brained people (artists and such) who are in need of constant appreciation and reassurance to happily "do the right thing" or to "continue to do the job as was described" but the right brained people, the more technically adept don't need so much of the "obvious appreciation".

this easy description of two different kinds of people starts to fail when a "right brained" seems to be needing the reassurance that the artistic sort do but actually just wants enough credit to continue their work and pay bills and to participate in the community that they are or have been serving in.

i have worked with actors, for instance -- in a place where actors should be, btw. it doesn't take much to tell these creative sort that they are really doing well, etc etc. no, actually it does take much. it takes familiarity with their work and knowlege of their improvement.

interestingly enough, the right-brainers enjoy this also. they often fail to know how to receive the appreciation.

something has interfered with the right-brained people having access to both bugzilla and the source, perhaps. maybe "actors" where they should not be?

i have been waiting for more than a week for a bug to be closed which should be closed, for instance. it might be the only way to communicate with the developers right now, but if the developers are not looking at bugzilla, then they will probably have to manage upset contributors with patches when they loose patience and write to this list.

or, the obviously broken bug reporting interface that has been suggested should be replaced with one that does what it is supposed to do.

carol

Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

How about:

This patch seems to have been completed last year; there are no outstanding issues against it. What needs to be done in order for this to be integrated?

Chris

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Charlie De wrote:

Why?? Rupert Weber finished this last September and you promised it would be in 2.8. Is this how you show respect for the most stellar effort by a new talent? Shame, truly, shame on you. It's now been 5 years since the issue was first reported, you're going to add another year even though the work is done. That is, if you don't break your promise again. Where's your integrity?

Charlie

----- Original Message ----

From: GIMP
To: charliecoeli@yahoo.com
Sent: Mon, March 14, 2011 9:05:01 AM Subject: [Bug 325564] Use CIE LCH instead of HSL for layer mode "Color"

https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=325564   GIMP | General  | git master

--- Comment #53 from Martin Nordholts 2011-03-14 08:04:28 UTC ---
We really must release 2.8 now, let's look at this for 2.10  instead.

-- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are  receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

_______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 05:34:13PM -0700, Carol Spears wrote:

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 11:20:14PM +0000, Øyvind Kolås wrote:

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 10:28 PM, Jacek Poplawski wrote:

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 8:47 PM, Charlie De wrote:

Why?? Rupert Weber finished this last September and you promised it would be in 2.8. Is this how you show respect for the most stellar effort by a new talent? Shame, truly, shame on you. It's now been 5 years since the issue was first reported, you're going to add another year even though the work is done. That is, if you don't break your promise again. Where's your integrity?

This is very sad.

I am not among the people working on GIMP itself - in the context of GIMP is primarily do work on GEGL - but I can tell both of you that this type of email does not serve to motivate any developer. At best they ignore it; at worst they get discouraged and decide that spending some of their spare time contributing to the common good/free software/GIMP is not worth it.

interesting, this because when GIMP was being developed by many people seemingly happily so, it was the quality of the patch or plug-in or the script, not the flavor of the ass-kissing or the style of the request.

it is the left brained people (artists and such) who are in need of constant appreciation and reassurance to happily "do the right thing" or to "continue to do the job as was described" but the right brained people, the more technically adept don't need so much of the "obvious appreciation".

this easy description of two different kinds of people starts to fail when a "right brained" seems to be needing the reassurance that the artistic sort do but actually just wants enough credit to continue their work and pay bills and to participate in the community that they are or have been serving in.

i have worked with actors, for instance -- in a place where actors should be, btw. it doesn't take much to tell these creative sort that they are really doing well, etc etc. no, actually it does take much. it takes familiarity with their work and knowlege of their improvement.

interestingly enough, the right-brainers enjoy this also. they often fail to know how to receive the appreciation.

something has interfered with the right-brained people having access to both bugzilla and the source, perhaps. maybe "actors" where they should not be?

i have been waiting for more than a week for a bug to be closed which should be closed, for instance. it might be the only way to communicate with the developers right now, but if the developers are not looking at bugzilla, then they will probably have to manage upset contributors with patches when they loose patience and write to this list.

or, the obviously broken bug reporting interface that has been suggested should be replaced with one that does what it is supposed to do.

s/left/right/

carol

Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

On 03/15/2011 08:47 PM, Charlie De wrote:

Why?? Rupert Weber finished this last September and you promised it would be in 2.8. Is this how you show respect for the most stellar effort by a new talent? Shame, truly, shame on you. It's now been 5 years since the issue was first reported, you're going to add another year even though the work is done. That is, if you don't break your promise again. Where's your integrity?

If we never make releases, we won't get new contributors either. We really need to make a release ASAP, and we simply don't have time to fix this before the 2.8 release. In modern software development, uncomfortable decisions like this sometimes needs to be made. I am sorry that it upsets you.

/ Martin

On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 06:10:33AM +0100, Martin Nordholts wrote:

On 03/15/2011 08:47 PM, Charlie De wrote:

Why?? Rupert Weber finished this last September and you promised it would be in 2.8. Is this how you show respect for the most stellar effort by a new talent? Shame, truly, shame on you. It's now been 5 years since the issue was first reported, you're going to add another year even though the work is done. That is, if you don't break your promise again. Where's your integrity?

If we never make releases, we won't get new contributors either. We really need to make a release ASAP, and we simply don't have time to fix this before the 2.8 release. In modern software development, uncomfortable decisions like this sometimes needs to be made. I am sorry that it upsets you.

you "took the time" to make tabs expand with the names of the dialog which the tab belonged to.

you also spend a lot of time repairing a script-fu for which a tool already worked fine for -- a script-fu which might better have been rewritten to use the current tool.

other bugs don't get closed after patches are applied.

i mention these things because you have access and except for the closing bugs problem, these are the things that you have done in the last year or so.

martin, if in, oh, lets say 3 days, March 18, 2011 the majority of your list items are not commited, perhaps you should consider stepping aside. "releases" don't attract developers. look at the history! gimp-1.0 - gimp-1.2, 1997 thru 2000. lots of contributors, lots of development, lots of ideas, lots of bug fixing. it was a lot of fun.

"buildbot" nightlies seem to have attracted "mitch" who has been working on things consistently and changes to the italian po files.

gimp has been stable enough to run the unstable version (with an exception for the current layer groups and a problem with painting since the end of last September) for years and years now.

sometimes, you gotta quit -- and see if that helps things. i sure didn't like what was going on, i needed to be forced to quit. so, okay fine, i quit for more than two years, maybe more than three and you know what? the problem wasn't me because all of the things that i did not like persisted and there was no improvement in involvement -- in fact, involvement (especially by people who can fix bugs and have some knowlege of gimps innards) dropped off.

i cannot force you to quit the way i was forced to quit. i can only ask you to consider this and also that before you quit, that you removed the buildbot stuff from gimp's source and put it into eh, lets say buildbots source on the same server. that way, other projects can become rejuvinated with buildbot product the way that gimp has been. i was told that it was a gnome project afterall...

carol

2011/3/16 Carol Spears :

martin, if in, oh, lets say 3 days, March 18, 2011 the majority of your list items are not commited, perhaps you should consider stepping aside.  "releases" don't attract developers.  look at the history!  gimp-1.0 - gimp-1.2, 1997 thru 2000.  lots of contributors, lots of development, lots of ideas, lots of bug fixing.  it was a lot of fun.

sometimes, you gotta quit -- and see if that helps things.  i sure didn't like what was going on, i needed to be forced to quit.  so, okay fine, i quit for more than two years, maybe more than three and you know what?  the problem wasn't me because all of the things that i did not like persisted and there was no improvement in involvement -- in fact, involvement (especially by people who can fix bugs and have some knowlege of gimps innards) dropped off.

i cannot force you to quit the way i was forced to quit.  i can only ask you to consider this and also that before you quit, that you removed the buildbot stuff from gimp's source and put it into eh, lets say buildbots source on the same server.  that way, other projects can become rejuvinated with buildbot product the way that gimp has been.  i was told that it was a gnome project afterall...

Hi Carol,

Thank you for sharing your concerns. I will quit when the majority of contributing members of the GIMP community wants me to quit.

Regards, Martin

My GIMP Blog:
http://www.chromecode.com/
"Why GIMP 2.8 is not released yet"
_______________________________________________
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

2011/3/16 Charlie De :

Martin, with all due respect, your focus in releasing 2.8 ASAP should be on integrating fixes that are completed, not battling to bring in new functionality such as layer groups. What's the point of layer groups if the layer transfer modes don't work correctly? More important than that is that a promise is being broken - a promise made to an excellent new talent who came out of nowhere and worked and behaved to the highest standard. The least you could do to encourage his further participation is to fulfill your part of the bargain and let his work see the light of day in the 2.8 release. In preference to layer groups, which could wait till 2.10.

My criticism is for the whole team involved in these decisions, I don't wish to single out Martin or ask anyone to quit.

Layer groups are already in 2.8, but we can't release 2.8 without fixing some things that users will expect to work and that must work, for example layer masks on a layer group. In other words, this is not about bringing in some new features not including others, it is about bringing our git master branch to a state where there are no incomplete features on it. Avoiding incomplete features on the master branch is crucial if we want to get in control of our currently very long development cycles.

And regarding the patch itself: It is not quite as easy as just commiting what we have now and be done with it. Before we can commit a patch like this, it needs thorough review of experienced developers. And by my standards, the patch also needs to come with a test case that verifies that it works, and that it keeps working. So, there is a substantial amount of work left before that bug report can be closed as fixed.

It was more than 3 years ago we made a stable release. Just as you point out, we must stop bringing in new features, finish work in progress, and make a release.

Regards, Martin

On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Charlie De wrote:

My criticism is for the whole team involved in these decisions, I don't wish to single out Martin or ask anyone to quit.

I understand your frustration, but you need to understand why we do things the way we do. Patches that come in need to be reviewed by a core developer to be accepted to assure continued code quality(and that's quite important in keeping the code from devolving into a mess...). We have approximately 1.5 core developers to do that at the moment and cleaning up stuff already in 2.8 tree takes priority.

Big patches developed in isolation have hard time making it into the tree, because the integration is often pain. If you really care about getting something in you need to become engaged in the developer community and work within the developer comunity... Then the merge phase is easy...

Hello,

perhaps everyone can calm down. What is the problem with this bug? If it is an missing review, then it's OK to move it to 2.10, because we don't have any developer for doing it. But if it is something with the patch then Rupert could fix it.

Regards, Tobias

Charlie De (charliecoeli@yahoo.com) wrote:

Could you please demonstrate your sincerity by escalating the 'bug' to critical? It would demonstrate commitment to really having this in 2.10, rather than just 'looking at it'. I think you owe it to the developer to make that gesture at the very least.

"critical" in Bugzilla has a specific meaning: It means that the bug can cause the application to crash and cause e.g. data loss.

There is the target milestone for the purpose of indicating in which version this is supposed to be fixed, but this already is set to 2.10.

Bugzilla is a tool to manage bug reports and/or accepted feature requests, and we try to use it as such. Overloading random bug attributes with different meanings does not help here.

Bugzilla is not a tool to demonstrate commitment or to fulfil other social purposes. I think it would be the wrong place.

Bye, Simon

If I understand correctly...

You don't want to apply patch with serious functionality, because stable release is coming and there is no time for that.

At the same time I noticed incorrect behaviour of UI (https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=643155) which happeneded month ago, and which will affect anyone who uses color picker in curves with different WM than the one which was tested by default. Am I right that stable Gimp release will contain this regression, because there will be no time to fix it?
(this is just an example, because I found this bug, but I suspect there are more noticed by other people)

So... patch with new funtionality will not be commited to trunk, but patch which broken basic functionality was commited month ago.

I know nothing about politics and fights between Gimp developers, I just want to understand the development process (I use Gimp almost everyday, so it's very important to me). I am also willing to donate my free time to this project (as a developer), but reading this forum (complexity of development process, not fights) holds me back.

On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 00:23 +0100, Jacek Poplawski wrote:

I know nothing about politics and fights between Gimp developers, I just want to understand the development process (I use Gimp almost everyday, so it's very important to me).

It's not a question of fights and politics.

It's a very small number of people with a lot of other things to do in life, trying hard to work together, and making a really good product.

I am also willing to donate
my free time to this project (as a developer), but reading this forum (complexity of development process, not fights) holds me back.

GIMP is a fairly large piece of software; it's also true that there seem to be some bottlenecks in development right now. As I see it these are:

(1) all UI proposals (and actual changes) need to be reviewed by an experienced UI designer; this does happen, and all the developers seem to agree that it improves the user experience considerably, once the negotiations are complete, but it can take a lot of iterations; (2) the move to gegl means lots of patches and contributions get turned down, because they will help gimp in the short term, but will then soon need to be rewritten;
(3) there are between 0.5 and 3 people-equivalent working on GIMP coding in any given week. That is, GIMP generally gets only a few hours of progress each week right now.
(4) it's true there's not 100% agreement on priorities, although there's for sure broad agreement. Some high priorities are clearly fixing the partly-implemented features (e.g. single window mode, on-canvas curves, layer groups), and the move to gtk+ 3.0. This work is mostly in the "very hard" category, so it needs core developers.

Changing this means getting past a difficult hill in the road, so that then smaller changes (even if equally important to some or many users) become possible again.

Maybe one day a month of "gimp love" easy bug fixes would be worth the time cost of having the core developers spending the day mentoring.

If it were possible to hire Sven, Mitch, the Michaels, Alexia, Simon, Wilber and the others for a solid month, we could probably drive over that first hill, and maybe even get within sight of the Mountains Of Gegl. For the Mountains we'll probably need a lot of not-necessarily-core developers to move plugins, tools and scripts.

Saying, "but this bug is absolutely critical" is really only OK if (1) you've already got a patch that's well-formatted :-), and (2) if it's really true that absolutely no-one can use GIMP without the fix, e.g. it crashes on startup. That may be true for GTK+ 3, for example.

This is my own perspective, and I am not by any means a core gimp developer, even if I might like being in a cage sometimes :D

Liam (Ankh)