On Thursday 27 September 2007 08:00:45 George Farris wrote:

Though you object to selective discussion of your discorse, you have at least twice falsely referred to gimp's lack of a tool for "non- distructive editing".  The term is a contradiction in itself.  Perhaps you can take the time to explain your meaning?

Yes I do object to selective discussion because it means no one else is able to follow the whole thread when bits get cut out so the thread gets chopped into fragmnents - each one then gets followed selectively. Readers then find they have to flip backwards and forwards to follow the discussion.

As this was a diversion from an original topic in a separate thread, and because your question is such a good one, I have decided to recast my original reply as a seperate topic and provide a little more detail.

This is not the first time a lack of understanding about the term "non-destructive editing" has come up and you are not the only one who has the mistaken belief that it is OK to falsely accuse others on this list of something equivalent to having

"falsely referred to gimp's lack of a tool for "non- distructive editing"

when you do not even understand the term under discussion.

I believe gimp is a "good enough" tool not to need inappropriate defensive reactions or ill-informed responses when its limitations are discussed. The discussion of limitations leads to enhancement and there his ample history of enhancement in Gimp's progress. Gimp is a substantial tool that, in common with all other tool sets has limitations and weaknesses. In non-destructive editing Gimp's weaknesses are substantial, however once support for 16 bit per channel AND native raw file handling has been developed the path will be open for solving the problem.

Before amplifying I do not want to you to have any mistaken impressions about   photoshop because one of my irritations with PS is that it does not yet fully achieve fully non-destructive editing. Its support for non-destructive editing is now quite substantial. It is getting there by a process of incremental improvement (whilst gimp cannot approach it) and each version seems to provide me with a more complete set (e.g. I have just upgraded to CS3 which, among other things, now has exposure adjustments available as a
non-destructive layer whereas in CS2 exposure was not accomplished non-destructively.)

By this I mean that one starts with loading the original image and that original can remain in the bottom of the stack. In the case of professional digital images that means raw files are sourced and loaded as 16bit images.

Non-destructive editing can, for example, be accomplished by having each edit take place as a layer which can, at any later point, be revisited, either by by the original image manipulator or anyone further down the chain. That layer can therefore be tweaked later in the process.  There are some processes in PS that cannot be accomplished non-destructively but as Gimp does not even start with the ability to load a raw image or even an image at 16 bit we cannot begin the process.

With non-destructive editing every individual edit can be selectively applied to the output (to screen, printer etc). Each edit is not applied to the original which remains intact. For example it means I could apply two alternative exposure corrections. At a very much later stage, and after much subsequent editing, either I or someone on some other machine, could print 4 copies namely the original without either  correction, with the first correction only, the second correction, or the sum of both corrections.

Non-destructive editing also implies the ability to transfer files between people and organization in a form that they can amend the edits applied by previous manipulators.

This is not a complete answer because there is more to it but I hope I have geven enough information to help explain why non-destructive editing is not a contradiction and also to ask you to withdraw your rather unkind and inappropriate accusation of falsity.

Thanks

On Tuesday 02 October 2007 10:07:56 gimp_user wrote:

On Thursday 27 September 2007 08:00:45 George Farris wrote:

Though you object to selective discussion of your discorse, you have at least twice falsely referred to gimp's lack of a tool for "non- distructive editing".  The term is a contradiction in itself.  Perhaps you can take the time to explain your meaning?

Yes I do object to selective discussion because it means no one else is able to follow the whole thread when bits get cut out so the thread gets chopped into fragmnents - each one then gets followed selectively. Readers then find they have to flip backwards and forwards to follow the discussion.

As this was a diversion from an original topic in a separate thread, and because your question is such a good one, I have decided to recast my original reply as a seperate topic and provide a little more detail.

This is not the first time a lack of understanding about the term "non-destructive editing" has come up and you are not the only one who has the mistaken belief that it is OK to falsely accuse others on this list of something equivalent to having

"falsely referred to gimp's lack of a tool for "non- distructive editing"

when you do not even understand the term under discussion.

I believe gimp is a "good enough" tool not to need inappropriate defensive reactions or ill-informed responses when its limitations are discussed. The discussion of limitations leads to enhancement and there his ample history of enhancement in Gimp's progress. Gimp is a substantial tool that, in common with all other tool sets has limitations and weaknesses. In non-destructive editing Gimp's weaknesses are substantial, however once support for 16 bit per channel AND native raw file handling has been developed the path will be open for solving the problem.

Before amplifying I do not want to you to have any mistaken impressions about   photoshop because one of my irritations with PS is that it does not yet fully achieve fully non-destructive editing. Its support for non-destructive editing is now quite substantial. It is getting there by a process of incremental improvement (whilst gimp cannot approach it) and each
version seems to provide me with a more complete set (e.g. I have just upgraded to CS3 which, among other things, now has exposure adjustments available as a
non-destructive layer whereas in CS2 exposure was not accomplished non-destructively.)

By this I mean that one starts with loading the original image and that original can remain in the bottom of the stack. In the case of professional digital images that means raw files are sourced and loaded as 16bit images.

Non-destructive editing can, for example, be accomplished by having each edit take place as a layer which can, at any later point, be revisited, either by by the original image manipulator or anyone further down the chain. That layer can therefore be tweaked later in the process.  There are some processes in PS that cannot be accomplished non-destructively but as Gimp does not even start with the ability to load a raw image or even an image at 16 bit we cannot begin the process.

With non-destructive editing every individual edit can be selectively applied to the output (to screen, printer etc). Each edit is not applied to the original which remains intact. For example it means I could apply two alternative exposure corrections. At a very much later stage, and after much subsequent editing, either I or someone on some other machine, could print 4 copies namely the original without either  correction, with the first correction only, the second correction, or the sum of both corrections.

Non-destructive editing also implies the ability to transfer files between people and organization in a form that they can amend the edits applied by previous manipulators.

This is not a complete answer because there is more to it but I hope I have geven enough information to help explain why non-destructive editing is not a contradiction and also to ask you to withdraw your rather unkind and inappropriate accusation of falsity.

One thing I forgot to mention is that if you are simply trying to edit an image for your own use and can revisit the original then the absense of non-destrucitve editing features may not be a handicap. The point is to know what you can and cannot do with each and every toolset and when a tool is appropriate to your needs and when it is not.

On Tuesday 02 October 2007 10:05:51 Sven Neumann wrote:

Hi,

while your explanation of non-destructive editing is all fine, I still think that your postings to this list are nothing but noise. This list is about using GIMP. The users who are interested in development know very well that everything you asked for is already on our roadmap. You can even get a sneak preview today by looking at the GEGL project. If you want to help, we need more people working on the code and we also need people experienced in user interaction design and usability. I don't think though that we need more people pointing out the obvious flaws in GIMP. We are all very well aware of them and you are just stealing our precious time.

Sven

Sven people ask these questions and they are very relevant to users. Every contribution is noise to someone.. Either because they are not interested in the topic or because they know the answer or because they do not happen to like the style of the contributor or his/her views. In a list one gets to choose what one reads and what one ignores. Its value lies in the fact that one persons noise is another person's music.

There is no obligation upon you to read my contributions..others clearly do and I get numerous responses both on and off the list. It is the dialogues that keep people interested.

Users need to be able to trust the information obtained from this list. George Farris's question is important, An understanding of the role of non-destructive editing in image-making is something that every digital image-maker needs. and his accusation of falsity was IMHO quite inappropriate. My response was not to skilled developers who know that but to users who do not understand its place in the scheme of things.

My contribution are not designed for your reading - or the reading of any developer. If they do not already know what non-destructive editing is then they are probably developing in the wrong arena. My contributions are intended to provide honest information to users who are interested in what gimp has to offer and what can and cannot yet be achieved. They are also intended to encourage people to use Gimp appropriately.

To be very direct my belief is that developers need to concentrate on development and demonstrate confidence in the result by not encouraging the notion that they seek contributors to exercise some form of self censorship for fear that developers object to honest dialogue - or are unable to select their choice of music from the noise.

Thanks again for what you do

David

David Southwell wrote:

On Tuesday 02 October 2007 10:05:51 Sven Neumann wrote:

Hi,

while your explanation of non-destructive editing is all fine, I still think that your postings to this list are nothing but noise. This list is about using GIMP. The users who are interested in development know very well that everything you asked for is already on our roadmap. You can even get a sneak preview today by looking at the GEGL project. If you want to help, we need more people working on the code and we also need people experienced in user interaction design and usability. I don't think though that we need more people pointing out the obvious flaws in GIMP. We are all very well aware of them and you are just stealing our precious time.

Sven

Sven people ask these questions and they are very relevant to users. Every contribution is noise to someone..

The problem as I see it is, your contributions of late have been 99% noise.. I don't see any use in hashing over these issues. If you would read the rest of Sven's post you would understand why they are noise. You're so damn focused on trying to make everyone see it your way you miss the facts that should be slapping you in the face.

On a moderated list, you would have been labeled a troll and requested to terminate this line of posts.

* gimp_user [10-02-07 13:47]:
Much unnecessary quote removed.....

One thing I forgot to mention is that if you are simply trying to edit an image for your own use and can revisit the original then the absense of non-destrucitve editing features may not be a handicap. The point is to know what you can and cannot do with each and every toolset and when a tool is appropriate to your needs and when it is not.

You keep getting back to this "non-destructive editing". WHO can edit an image for what-ever purpose and not retain the original? HOW can you edit and not have a copy of to begin with?

You have confirmed your statis as NOISE and nothing else.

IF you choose to to respond, do so to the LIST. A personal response is unwanted/unrequired/unnecessary/spam.

Patrick Shanahan (ptilopteri@gmail.com) wrote:

* gimp_user [10-02-07 13:47]:
Much unnecessary quote removed.....

One thing I forgot to mention is that if you are simply trying to edit an image for your own use and can revisit the original then the absense of non-destrucitve editing features may not be a handicap. The point is to know what you can and cannot do with each and every toolset and when a tool is appropriate to your needs and when it is not.

You keep getting back to this "non-destructive editing". WHO can edit an image for what-ever purpose and not retain the original? HOW can you edit and not have a copy of to begin with?

You can do this by storing the original and saving the additional processing steps. Then the result can be recomputed from the original image data. Which incidentially is one of the points that GEGL wants to make possible.

You have confirmed your statis as NOISE and nothing else.

Not "just noise", his points have some merit. But they are directed to the wrong audience and the intended audience already knows about his points. That ironically makes his mails pointless...

Bye, Simon

On Tuesday 02 October 2007 13:02:02 Simon Budig wrote:

Not "just noise", his points have some merit. But they are directed to the wrong audience and the intended audience already knows about his points. That ironically makes his mails pointless...

If you regard my contributions as noise then please do not waste you time reading them unless you are trolling to start a flame war. If so you will not be successful here because I will follow a policy I have followed over 30 years on mail lists -- keep on topic and, apart from making a polite qrequest to keep on topic, ignore trolling provocations designed to take threads off topic by making personal comments.

So here is my polite request:

"You are not obliged to read my posts so please be thoughtful of others and either contribute on topic or keep quiet."

I would add:

Maybe you are not comfortable with the topic but please leave anyone else who has a different point of view, free to contribute in comfort. Topics in which noone is interested die early.

Most people realize that one person's noise may be another's music. I find the most interesting and valuable contributions come from people who have sound arguments well expressed and who, when they disagree with another's argument, are able to find ways to respond and be personally respectful at the same time.

Thanks

Von: gimp_user

If you regard my contributions as noise then please do not waste you time reading them unless you are trolling to start a flame war. If so you will not be successful here because I will follow a policy I have followed over 30 years on mail lists -- keep on topic and, apart from making a polite qrequest to keep on topic, ignore trolling provocations designed to take threads off topic by making personal comments.

Then what do you do if the topic you keep on to can be regarded as a trolling provocation?

I'm not sure if many do still follow this thread. If you want to get back on track, you should probably provide a short summary, for example:

- who is your intended target audience - what are you trying to tell them
- what do you expect from them

Also, it would be interesting to know if you are aware of the future plans for GIMP.

HTH, Michael

On Tuesday 02 October 2007 11:52:13 Patrick Shanahan wrote:

* gimp_user [10-02-07 13:47]:
Much unnecessary quote removed.....

One thing I forgot to mention is that if you are simply trying to edit an image for your own use and can revisit the original then the absense of non-destrucitve editing features may not be a handicap. The point is to know what you can and cannot do with each and every toolset and when a tool is appropriate to your needs and when it is not.

You keep getting back to this "non-destructive editing". WHO can edit an image for what-ever purpose and not retain the original? HOW can you edit and not have a copy of to begin with?

Your question is a good one and the distinctions are sometimes simple, sometimes complex.

In this response I am going to try and explain my perception here. First the distinction between the original and the process of editing.

You are correct to point out that sensible processors will retain a copy of their original. Here your question suggests a lack of clarity on my part.

1. The term non-destructive editing is term that describes a process chosen for editing rather than the simple retainment of a copy of the original (which is simply a back up).

2. There is no external authority who precisely defines what is and what is not non-destructive editing but it is a term in wide use and has a certain group of expectations attached to it that sometimes loosely and sometimes quite precisely define it.

3. The term Non-destructive editing is generally taken to have a meaning that goes well beyond the simple keeping of a record of exactly what has been done at every stage so one can troll back through the record to recreate each stage.

4. The non-destructive specific record from editing is not the same as a separate record of every action or stage in the process.

5. Now I will attempt to amplify.

Let us say we are beginning work on a basic image.

(a) I am not entirely happy with the exposure of the image as a whole. If I was editing destructively I would use a tool to change the exposure and the original image chnages accordingly. If I am editing non-destructively then I need a tool to help me. For example it could creates an entirely different layer that appears in a layer stack above the original image. This layer would hold instructs that would apply my adjustment to a selection of layers that appear below the adjustment layer. However this is only stage one and does not quite yet meet current expectations of non-destructivenness. We have to be able to two further requirements: the ability to revisit the adjustment layer and tweak it at any later time (no matter how many subsequent changes have been made). The ability to turn on and off the effect. This is most important because it enables one to view the image with and without the effect at any subsequent time and also create other layers providing the same effect but applying different values.

(b) I now carry out many more edits each one of which is similarly handled. Furthermore when I close that image it can be reopened and all the adjustment layers are there for subsequent tweaking by \anyone to whom I choose to pass the file.

IF I can present a third party with a full copy of my work, and they can go back in and tweak each effect to their satifaction than I can honestly tell them the image has been editied non-destructively. However if they had to retrace my steps from the history then the edit would definitely not be regarded as non-destructive.

How is the record different?

Usually with non-destructive editing you have the history (which is the same as a record of every step).

However more importantly the adjustment layers only record for each effect what actually modifies the original to produce the final image. So the noise in the history from work that I did, but discarded, does not clutter up the non-destructive editing record.

For example if I had adjusted the exposure up and down repeatedly the final adjustment layer would only hold my final setings rather then the ones I had discarded.

However if I had two layers holding exposure adjustments I could have both affect the final record or either or none!

It is important to appreciate that for the professional interested in high quality images the image at the base of the stack will normally be the raw image stored at 16 bit per channel. However when one is working using HD the actual image could be 48 bit per channel as a result of combining three images to produce the base.

On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 02:55:35 -0700, gimp_user wrote:

On Tuesday 02 October 2007 13:02:02 Simon Budig wrote:

Not "just noise", his points have some merit. But they are directed to the wrong audience and the intended audience already knows about his points. That ironically makes his mails pointless...

If you regard my contributions as noise then please do not waste you time reading them unless you are trolling to start a flame war. If so you will not be successful here because I will follow a policy I have followed over 30 years on mail lists -- keep on topic and, apart from making a polite qrequest to keep on topic, ignore trolling provocations designed to take threads off topic by making personal comments.

I assume that you have read the part of Simon's message that you have quoted above. He did not write that your contributions are noise. He wrote that they are addressed to the wrong audience. Furthermore, the developers (who may be a better audience for feature requests) are already aware of the benefits of non-destructive editing, and the GEGL library is a step in that direction.

Considering that most developers are already aware of the benefits (and overhead) of non-destructive editing, I am wondering why you keep on arguing about it.

You are posting this on the user list. Although this list can provide good feedback about what some users like or do not like, this may not be the best place to argue about how to implement a feature that has already been discussed several times. Well, unless you think that some members of this list who are not already developers would be so convinced by your arguments that they would decide to learn programming, study the GIMP internals, and start redesigning the whole GIMP core on their own. But I consider this to be rather unlikely.

So please think twice before arguing about these issues. I suggest that you take a look at GEGL if you haven't looked at it already. Then feel free to bring back this topic on this list or on the developers list in about two years if you think that GIMP is not making progress in the right direction.

-Raphaël

P.S.: The suggestion to bring this back in two years is not a way to keep you away. It is just a reflection on the speed at which GIMP is developed and probably the earliest date at which some of the suggested features could be reviewed.

gimp_user writes:

[...] This layer would hold instructs that would apply my adjustment [...]

Yes! In fact, when I first started to work with layers I'd expected the layers to work like this (i.e. store change instructions instead of pixels).

Being an old Unix hacker, I'd go for a way to have Gimp dump the changes in some structured way to an external (text) file, one that can be editied and re-applied.

-- Johan

On Thursday 04 October 2007 03:41:05 Michael Schumacher wrote:

Von: gimp_user

If you regard my contributions as noise then please do not waste you time reading them unless you are trolling to start a flame war. If so you will not be successful here because I will follow a policy I have followed over 30 years on mail lists -- keep on topic and, apart from making a polite qrequest to keep on topic, ignore trolling provocations designed to take threads off topic by making personal comments.

Then what do you do if the topic you keep on to can be regarded as a trolling provocation?

I'm not sure if many do still follow this thread. If you want to get back on track, you should probably provide a short summary, for example:

- who is your intended target audience - what are you trying to tell them
- what do you expect from them

Also, it would be interesting to know if you are aware of the future plans for GIMP.

In response to your questions:

1. As far as your trolling remark I cannot see what is in the heads of others and I would strongly recomend the policy I adopt.

It has kept me out of flame wars for over thirty years. There are always people on the net with strange agendas who get offended for no rational reason.

I remember a classic case on a mailing list (using email on on a uucp system) in 1978 when someone used the words "this project has been aborted" and there was a whole string of responses objecting to the language - it went on for weeks and nobody seemed to think of anything else.

People who are easily offended respond irrationally and suspect others of underhand motives. They usuially are unable to take what people say at face value. So I tend to feel a little sorry for them rather than take personal offense.

I am not responsible for how others respond and I try and respond to irrationality by ignoring the dross and concentrating on on-topic elements. If you really think I am trolling then you are fee to ignore my contributions safe in the knowledge I will not treat anyone else with unwarranted suspicions or encourage flame wars!!.

As far as your other questions:

1. The audience is those that I respond to or respond to me and either discuss or answer on topic.
2. What is in my contributions..
3. Only what they want to offer. What I like to see is openess, integrity, humanity and respect for others (preferably including myself).

I interpret your questioning as an indication you suspect I have some kind of agenda that goes beyond what I say. lf you are harbouring such suspicions then they are misplaced. My response to the interpretation is to wonder what your responses tell me about you.

All I can say is I am at a stage in life (around 70) when I have seen much come and go and have benefited artistically from the contributions of many. I like to give back a bit and know that creativity does not come without a struggle.

As far as the future plans of Gimp I read the technical detail but find it hard to put my finger on a sense of mission that enables me to place its future in context. However my focus here is on what I and other users can do now with the tools that are available. Artistically I need to solve my challenges with the tools I have and understand what they can and cannot do for me. So for me, being firmly, as far as Gimp is concerned, on the user side, I am not therefore too concerned about plans but am glad to hear that 16bit is on the agenda along with non-destructive editing. When it comes along I will be the first to try it and assess both its potentials and its limitations.

When I paint I do not use a fine camel hair brush to put on large swathes of thick paint and the brush manufacturer would not feel the least offended if I told a student "hey you might want to use a palette knife here". The brush manufacturer would know that if I saw a student trying to do something with a palette knife that would be better done with a camel hair brush I would be equally honest in the reverse direction.

Watching this list (which I have done for many years) I wonder if the Core tem developing Gimp are a little too emotionally committed to the toolset and are not able to see that good tools are pushed to their very limit by users and that during his/her development good artists need to know where the limits are. Developers, by definition , are primarily interested in what is coming -- after all that is only to be expected because they are creating it!!

On the other hand users are focused not on the plans for Gimp but on what they can and cannot do with Gimp NOW!!

FWIW I wonder whether Gimp developers all too easily misinterpret user discussion of current limits as a critique of Gimp. Some even react as though developers themselves are under attack. Having both technical and artistic background I see such discussion as an artistic necessity, an appreciation of the toolset and an expression of user desire to get the best out of a valuable tool. IMHO they should see such discussion for what it is - an appreciation of the tool and a determination to press the current version to its limits. Developers need to understand users can only use a tool with confidence when they undertand the implications of its limitations - so discussion of limitations is to be encouraged rather than worried about!!

On Thursday 04 October 2007 04:42:55 Raphaël Quinet wrote:

On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 02:55:35 -0700, gimp_user wrote:

On Tuesday 02 October 2007 13:02:02 Simon Budig wrote:

Not "just noise", his points have some merit. But they are directed to the wrong audience and the intended audience already knows about his points. That ironically makes his mails pointless...

If you regard my contributions as noise then please do not waste you time reading them unless you are trolling to start a flame war. If so you will not be successful here because I will follow a policy I have followed over 30 years on mail lists -- keep on topic and, apart from making a polite qrequest to keep on topic, ignore trolling provocations designed to take threads off topic by making personal comments.

I assume that you have read the part of Simon's message that you have quoted above. He did not write that your contributions are noise. He wrote that they are addressed to the wrong audience. Furthermore, the developers (who may be a better audience for feature requests) are already aware of the benefits of non-destructive editing, and the GEGL library is a step in that direction.

Considering that most developers are already aware of the benefits (and overhead) of non-destructive editing, I am wondering why you keep on arguing about it.

You are posting this on the user list. Although this list can provide good feedback about what some users like or do not like, this may not be the best place to argue about how to implement a feature that has already been discussed several times. Well, unless you think that some members of this list who are not already developers would be so convinced by your arguments that they would decide to learn programming, study the GIMP internals, and start redesigning the whole GIMP core on their own. But I consider this to be rather unlikely.

So please think twice before arguing about these issues. I suggest that you take a look at GEGL if you haven't looked at it already. Then feel free to bring back this topic on this list or on the developers list in about two years if you think that GIMP is not making progress in the right direction.

-Raphaël

P.S.: The suggestion to bring this back in two years is not a way to keep you away. It is just a reflection on the speed at which GIMP is developed and probably the earliest date at which some of the suggested features could be reviewed. _______________________________________________

I think you miss the point and I do not agree that it is the wrong audience

--- Sven Neumann wrote:

I don't think though that we need more people pointing out the

obvious

flaws in GIMP.

Obvious to whom? Do you speak for the list members?

We are all very well aware of them...

We are?

...and you are just stealing our precious time.

Again, do you speak for the rest of us?

Now, granted, I'm fairly new here so I don't know what role you play in the GIMP world, but so far the only person I've seen bitching about "noise" is you. I find these discussions informative, and as a GIMP user, useful. As long as people don't start getting into how the source code does this or that, I don't have a problem the current line of discussions.

_____________________________________

Greg wrote:

--- Sven Neumann wrote:

I don't think though that we need more people pointing out the

obvious

flaws in GIMP.

Obvious to whom? Do you speak for the list members?

I think this theme has been arisen here many times. And I believe the developers are bothered answering the same question for the n-ty times. You can check it by searching in this list. Moreover, GEGL (floating point channel values and procedural layers) has been mentioned in this thread as to be embedded in GIMP in the next 2.6 version and even the roadmap has been explained several times. Take a look at http://gegl.org .

What do you really need to be told here? The developers are aware about more than 8 bits per channel and procedural layers. They promised to make it possible in the next GIMP version. GEGL has that features already implemented. So what more information do you need?

If you just want to state that more than 8 bits per channel is good, the developers know that fact. I think it is mostly a holy war, as I can quoter Dan Margulis which said (my translation from Russian which is in turn translation from original English I do not have):

"During the last 3 years more than dozen of different experts, including me, have been doing serious attempts to find any evidences which testify to the benefits of corrections in 16-bit mode. The experts took the very different color photos from the real life, applied every possible treatment methods trying to find the tracks of the fact that this method provides better results than 8-bits one. How did we taunt the poor files! But we have not managed to find any benefits".

So I believe the benefits exist, but their value is too much overspoken!

We are all very well aware of them...

We are?

...and you are just stealing our precious time.

Again, do you speak for the rest of us?

Now, granted, I'm fairly new here so I don't know what role you play in the GIMP world, but so far the only person I've seen bitching about "noise" is you. I find these discussions informative, and as a GIMP user, useful. As long as people don't start getting into how the source code does this or that, I don't have a problem the current line of discussions.

Sven is the project leader and main contributor to the code. You can simply browse via
http://svn.gnome.org/svn/gimp/trunk/ChangeLog to proven it.