Report of Meeting: plans 2011

[Silvio Grosso]

Hi everyone,

Pentalis wrote:
> David, and myself, and probably Silvio too, want a more powerful brush

Naturally, It is better to have a powerful mixing engine provided that it is
not too difficult (and time-consuming) to get.
Most of all, it shouldn't require too much "fine-tuning" by other
developers.
As everyone knows, Krita's resources are not boundless :-)
At present, in my view, the most important thing is bug-fixing and stability
(in essence, speed when painting).

If I may crack a joke the risk is to have a "Gimp - Gegl situation" where
everyone knows Gegl is the perfect answer to Gimp's needs but, at present,
due to the lack of resources, it is difficult to have Gegl fully integrated
with Gimp.

When I have proposed to sponsor a new mixing brush engine to Pentalis I have
kept in mind the time suggested in the Google-in web-page for the simple
mixing brush [1].
That is, one - maximum three week to get the job done.

I have proposed to sponsor Pentalis because I am sure he can do a wonderful
job.
On top of that, he had proposed on more occasions to work on it (in his
spare time).
In my view, whenever this is possible, it is much better to sponsor someone
for a task he is going to like (or he has proposed himself).
This is useful to try to avoid "disasters" :-)

Needless to say, I think it is really vital to decide among YOU developers
(Pentalis <-> Krita's team) the best path to follow.

As for me, I am going to stick to your final decision ;-)

To sum up, the implementation proposed by Lukas for a new mixing brush
engine is less "ambitious" but it is very likely to work out fine in the
end. 
On the contrary, the path proposed by Pentalis is much more "risky" but, in
the end, it might be more beneficial for Krita's development.

Best regards,

Silvio
-- 
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Report-of-Meeting%3A-plans-2011-tp30579927p30603515.html
Sent from the kimageshop mailing list archive at Nabble.com.