The name "Gimp"

[John B-12]

Well, if it's out of the question, then I guess I'll just shut up
before this becomes a big argument.
_______________________________________________
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@...
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

[Christopher Howard-3]

John B wrote:
> Well, if it's out of the question, then I guess I'll just shut up
> before this becomes a big argument.
> _______________________________________________
> Gimp-developer mailing list
> Gimp-developer@...
> https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

It seems to be "out of the question" as far as convincing the developers
here to ever do that. Under the terms of the GPL3, however, there is
nothing to stop you from forking the code and doing that yourself.

Probably the best way, I would imagine, would be to keep nearly all the
code the same, but to add a configure options (like "--better-name")
that causes the logo and title bar name to be replaced. But if you were
to go to all the trouble, you would want to come up with a really classy
name and well-designed logo or else no one would care.

I'm sure that has been mentioned in the archives as well, but I thought
I'd mention it again in case you actually had the time and interest to
do it. Personally, I don't like the name GIMP either, as it's not a very
selling name. I know that annoys many of the (dedicated, hardworking)
developers, but we all have the right to our own opinion.

--
Christopher Howard
http://indicium.us
http://theologia.indicium.us



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

[David Gowers]

On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 9:25 AM, Christopher Howard <choward@...> wrote:

> John B wrote:
>> Well, if it's out of the question, then I guess I'll just shut up
>> before this becomes a big argument.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gimp-developer mailing list
>> Gimp-developer@...
>> https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
>
> It seems to be "out of the question" as far as convincing the developers
> here to ever do that. Under the terms of the GPL3, however, there is
> nothing to stop you from forking the code and doing that yourself.
>
> Probably the best way, I would imagine, would be to keep nearly all the
> code the same, but to add a configure options (like "--better-name")
> that causes the logo and title bar name to be replaced. But if you were
> to go to all the trouble, you would want to come up with a really classy
> name and well-designed logo or else no one would care.
>
> I'm sure that has been mentioned in the archives as well, but I thought
> I'd mention it again in case you actually had the time and interest to
> do it. Personally, I don't like the name GIMP either, as it's not a very
> selling name. I know that annoys many of the (dedicated, hardworking)
> developers, but we all have the right to our own opinion.

It doesn't really matter that much to the developers *what* it is
called, as far as I know.
The point is really the branding... changing name will definitively
LOSE a lot of users, no matter what the current name is or the
intended name is.
There may be solutions to this problem (though commercially,
rebranding seems to involve a lot of expensive advertising). So far,
no-one has proposed one (or demonstrated that the current name is
problematic in an actual provable way -- just assertions that it is
offensive or not offensive in so-or-so region.).

All the above comprise a significant factor in why forks are regarded,
at best, as a necessary evil. All forks dilute branding, which
introduces user confusion and repels potential users.

So I do agree with one thing you said -- If you were to fork the
project you would need to do so really well. This would probably
involve forking the gimp-docs and gimp-gap similarly (and maybe also
FX-Foundry) in order to cover the 'gimp' references in these most
commonly installed accessories. It would also be important to make it
very clear that it is compatible with GIMP plug-ins, and therefore to
search GIMP's global plug-in/resource directories for resources as
well as the fork's plugin/resource directories (identifying and
ignoring duplicate resources). It would require the mascot to be
changed (and therefore also some of the icon set, as they include
Wilber), and also some (all?) of the gimp-docs screenshots, as well as
some of the example images in gimp-docs which use Wilber. It would
require a strategy for dealing with existing .gimp-2.7/ directories.

That's my understanding at a glance. Actually doing it well would be
more involved than the above, I expect. (for example, we use the
phrase 'happy GIMPing!' and similar verb-ing of the GIMP name.. so it
would help to have the replacement name be easily verb-able too)
_______________________________________________
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@...
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

[Andrew A. Gill]

Well, if we're going to do this discussion, I think I'll just
unsubscribe for a while.

Let me know when you guys decide to keep the name GIMP.  Or
better yet, don't.

--
| Andrew A. Gill     To ensure continued quality of service,   |
|                    this e-mail is being monitored by the NSA |
| <superluser@...> <http://www.needsfoodbadly.com> |
                                                               --
_______________________________________________
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@...
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

[Stephen Griffiths-2]

On Thu, 2009-10-29 at 10:48 +1030, David Gowers wrote:

> It doesn't really matter that much to the developers *what* it is
> called, as far as I know.
> The point is really the branding... changing name will definitively
> LOSE a lot of users, no matter what the current name is or the
> intended name is.
> There may be solutions to this problem (though commercially,
> rebranding seems to involve a lot of expensive advertising). So far,
> no-one has proposed one (or demonstrated that the current name is
> problematic in an actual provable way -- just assertions that it is
> offensive or not offensive in so-or-so region.).
>
> All the above comprise a significant factor in why forks are regarded,
> at best, as a necessary evil. All forks dilute branding, which
> introduces user confusion and repels potential users.
>
> So I do agree with one thing you said -- If you were to fork the
> project you would need to do so really well. This would probably
> involve forking the gimp-docs and gimp-gap similarly (and maybe also
> FX-Foundry) in order to cover the 'gimp' references in these most
> commonly installed accessories. It would also be important to make it
> very clear that it is compatible with GIMP plug-ins, and therefore to
> search GIMP's global plug-in/resource directories for resources as
> well as the fork's plugin/resource directories (identifying and
> ignoring duplicate resources). It would require the mascot to be
> changed (and therefore also some of the icon set, as they include
> Wilber), and also some (all?) of the gimp-docs screenshots, as well as
> some of the example images in gimp-docs which use Wilber. It would
> require a strategy for dealing with existing .gimp-2.7/ directories.
>
> That's my understanding at a glance. Actually doing it well would be
> more involved than the above, I expect. (for example, we use the
> phrase 'happy GIMPing!' and similar verb-ing of the GIMP name.. so it
> would help to have the replacement name be easily verb-able too)

If we are going to have this conversation again and we will either until
the name changes or the sun burns out, we should argue rationally.
Pushing forward the idea that someone should fork the project insinuates
that people are unhappy with the current leadership with all the skills
it would require to maintain gimp, this is definitely not the case.  If
a fork did occur, it only requires forking the application, even thought
the plug-ins, docs etc are very valuable.

If the argument for keeping the name is seriously that the project
branding is valuable, why don't we write that in the FAQ?

Would we seriously loose a lot of users if the name changed? are users
attached to the name or the program? if we do suspect that users would
not be able to associate the product with the name are there steps that
we could take to mitigate this problem? There is another way this could
go, which is that changing the name generates a lot of positive
publicity and no doubt it would.  Hatred of the name generates negative
publicity as it is.

The name GIMP is not so invaluable that it cannot be changed, also there
is a massive number of outsiders who find the name truly unappealing, I
do not hear the raw of the people saying they love the name.

Whether or not we are sick to death of this conversation it will keep
coming back, because the arguments against the name are valid.

regards,
Stephen.

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

[Christopher Howard-3]

Stephen Griffiths wrote:

> On Thu, 2009-10-29 at 10:48 +1030, David Gowers wrote:
>> It doesn't really matter that much to the developers *what* it is
>> called, as far as I know.
>> The point is really the branding... changing name will definitively
>> LOSE a lot of users, no matter what the current name is or the
>> intended name is.
>> There may be solutions to this problem (though commercially,
>> rebranding seems to involve a lot of expensive advertising). So far,
>> no-one has proposed one (or demonstrated that the current name is
>> problematic in an actual provable way -- just assertions that it is
>> offensive or not offensive in so-or-so region.).
>>
>> All the above comprise a significant factor in why forks are regarded,
>> at best, as a necessary evil. All forks dilute branding, which
>> introduces user confusion and repels potential users.
>>
>> So I do agree with one thing you said -- If you were to fork the
>> project you would need to do so really well. This would probably
>> involve forking the gimp-docs and gimp-gap similarly (and maybe also
>> FX-Foundry) in order to cover the 'gimp' references in these most
>> commonly installed accessories. It would also be important to make it
>> very clear that it is compatible with GIMP plug-ins, and therefore to
>> search GIMP's global plug-in/resource directories for resources as
>> well as the fork's plugin/resource directories (identifying and
>> ignoring duplicate resources). It would require the mascot to be
>> changed (and therefore also some of the icon set, as they include
>> Wilber), and also some (all?) of the gimp-docs screenshots, as well as
>> some of the example images in gimp-docs which use Wilber. It would
>> require a strategy for dealing with existing .gimp-2.7/ directories.
>>
>> That's my understanding at a glance. Actually doing it well would be
>> more involved than the above, I expect. (for example, we use the
>> phrase 'happy GIMPing!' and similar verb-ing of the GIMP name.. so it
>> would help to have the replacement name be easily verb-able too)
>
> If we are going to have this conversation again and we will either until
> the name changes or the sun burns out, we should argue rationally.
> Pushing forward the idea that someone should fork the project insinuates
> that people are unhappy with the current leadership with all the skills
> it would require to maintain gimp, this is definitely not the case.  If
> a fork did occur, it only requires forking the application, even thought
> the plug-ins, docs etc are very valuable.
>
> If the argument for keeping the name is seriously that the project
> branding is valuable, why don't we write that in the FAQ?
>
> Would we seriously loose a lot of users if the name changed? are users
> attached to the name or the program? if we do suspect that users would
> not be able to associate the product with the name are there steps that
> we could take to mitigate this problem? There is another way this could
> go, which is that changing the name generates a lot of positive
> publicity and no doubt it would.  Hatred of the name generates negative
> publicity as it is.
>
> The name GIMP is not so invaluable that it cannot be changed, also there
> is a massive number of outsiders who find the name truly unappealing, I
> do not hear the raw of the people saying they love the name.
>
> Whether or not we are sick to death of this conversation it will keep
> coming back, because the arguments against the name are valid.
>
> regards,
> Stephen.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gimp-developer mailing list
> Gimp-developer@...
> https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

When I mentioned "forking the project" I wasn't thinking of having a
version of GIMP out there that was actually following a fully separate
development path with a bunch of disgrunted GIMP developers. Rather, it
could be the exact same thing except with a patched-in configure option
or something that allowed rebranding. For example, in Gentoo (a source
based Linux distribution) when you compile Firefox, you can pass in an
"iceweasel" configure option that rebrands it with the Debian logos, or
you can pass in a "bindist" option that rebrands it with generic branding.

If the official GIMP developers (the people who own the repository)
don't want to change the name of GIMP, but half the users don't like the
name, then patching the code is the only option left for those users.
And this is one of the great things about open source software: if you
don't like something about a particular piece of software (like the
branding) you are at full liberty to change that piece of the software.

Anyway, if I myself was going to dedicate the time to doing this, I
would probably set up the forked/patched code in such a way so that the
user/distributor could decide at compile time what branding he wanted.

--
Christopher Howard
http://indicium.us
http://theologia.indicium.us



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

[David Gowers]

On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Christopher Howard
<choward@...> wrote:
> Stephen Griffiths wrote:
> When I mentioned "forking the project" I wasn't thinking of having a
> version of GIMP out there that was actually following a fully separate
> development path with a bunch of disgrunted GIMP developers. Rather, it
> could be the exact same thing except with a patched-in configure option
> or something that allowed rebranding. For example, in Gentoo (a source
> based Linux distribution) when you compile Firefox, you can pass in an
> "iceweasel" configure option that rebrands it with the Debian logos, or
> you can pass in a "bindist" option that rebrands it with generic branding.

Sure.. except, I listed the things that would be needed for that. If
you do not do at least most of those things, you would only be doing a
partial rebranding. You would have parts of the overall package
calling itself GIMP rather than the new name. If this would happen,
the confusion caused by it almost certainly would be more 'expensive'
in terms of user confusion/disgruntlement than simply leaving GIMP
branded as.. GIMP.

I'd also like to mention that I find the
iceweasel/icecat/shiretoko/minefield/firefox thing quite confusing. It
seems kind of useful in an abstract sense (minefield is .. dangerous,
iceweasel is strictly FOSS,..). There is significant differentiation
of mascots happening, though, unlike what you seem to be suggesting.

Rebranding could be automatic, but it couldn't IMO be simply a matter
of substituting text strings as you suggest with your 'configure
option' idea.
You would need to also have a different mascot, and consequently
regeneration of images would be needed (using a set of unbranded
screenshots + a set of mascot images).

It just occurred to me: the 'text substitution' would need to rewrite
PO files in order for I18N to function correctly.
_______________________________________________
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@...
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

[David Gowers]

On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Brendan <mailinglist@...> wrote:
>> All the above comprise a significant factor in why forks are regarded,
>> at best, as a necessary evil. All forks dilute branding, which
>> introduces user confusion and repels potential users.
>
> I think it's incorrect to say it repels potential users and leave it at that.
> It will also just as likely ATTRACT new users who were put off by the lame
> name.

That's speculative. We know from past software history that what I
described actually happens.
(I'm not opposed to a rebranding. I just think that it would need to
be done a) really thoroughly and carefully, b) in cooperation with
GIMP developers, and c) released with very calculated timing. And also
that such a rebranding is very far from trivial to achieve.)

>
> Call it the Gnu IMP.

This has to be facetiousness, doesn't it?
In what parallel universe do you live in, that people will not
simplify 'Gnu IMP' down to 'gIMP'/'GIMP'?
For that matter, how is 'GIMP' (which may be considered offensive by
people who've seen Pulp Fiction, or
by disabled people) better than gIMP (which may be considered
offensive by religious nutcases)? It seems to me that there are far
more people in the latter category.
_______________________________________________
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@...
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

[Laxminarayan Kamath]

On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 10:15 AM, David Gowers <00ai99@...> wrote:
>>
>> Call it the Gnu IMP.
>
> This has to be facetiousness, doesn't it?

What about "FreeMI" ? standing for "Freedom to Manipulate Images"?
*if* the GTK people want to rename accordingly, even that would sound
nice "FreeTK"


--
Laxminarayan Kamath Ammembal
http://lankerisms.blogspot.com
([phone]
_______________________________________________
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@...
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

[David Gowers]

Incidentally, I like Stephen's 'Wilber/ Wilber Image Editor'
suggestion (in another related thread).
I'm envisioning someone using the latest GIT version because they
*have* to be up-to-date with the newest stuff, the program crashing
and destroying their work, and they cry 'Nooooo! WIEEEEEEEEEEE?' :D

</silly>

(I do genuinely like that suggestion, just to be clear)
_______________________________________________
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@...
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

[Monty Montgomery-2]

On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 12:53 AM, Laxminarayan Kamath
<kamathln@...> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 10:15 AM, David Gowers <00ai99@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> Call it the Gnu IMP.
>>
>> This has to be facetiousness, doesn't it?
>
> What about "FreeMI" ? standing for "Freedom to Manipulate Images"?
> *if* the GTK people want to rename accordingly, even that would sound
> nice "FreeTK"


Oh... wow.

Almost 8 years ago to the day, a Slashdot user in a comment proclaimed
'Vorbis is the stupidest name ever given to a piece of software.  it
should have a kick-ass cutting edge name like FreeMP3!".

A great deal of labor, a great deal of love and even more time went
into the Gimp.  I should think it common courtesey that the parents
get to name the child and it's a bit rude to even bring it up
otherwise.  Besides, you're at leat 15 years late.  This baby's in
high school.

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

[Alexandre Prokoudine]

On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 4:19 AM, Stephen Griffiths wrote:

> If the argument for keeping the name is seriously that the project
> branding is valuable, why don't we write that in the FAQ?

Purely coincidentally it's been in the FAQ for years.

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

[Patrick Horgan]

Stephen Griffiths wrote:
> ... elision by Patrick
> The name GIMP is not so invaluable that it cannot be changed, also there
> is a massive number of outsiders who find the name truly unappealing, I
> do not hear the raw of the people saying they love the name.
>  
You can hear my raw here.  I love the name.  It appeals to me as a geek
(I'm sure that you really hate THAT word, so much more fraught with
ill-meaning than gimp), as an artist, and as an open source advocate.  
All of those things make me a bit of an outsider in the world, but an
insider here.  I think that the gimp is made for people like me, and we
like the name.  Inside any of those communities, the work GIMP means a
hell of a good open source image editing program, and there ARE no
negative connotations.  It's just the way that we geeks find it amusing
that there's another meaning of geek that would have us do strange to
chickens.  We know what we mean, and if outsiders don't get it, they'll
either remain outsiders, or eventually become cool and THEN they'll get
it.  GIMP has panache.  (N.B. I don't mean the meaning of panache that
signifies a bunch of feathers or a plume on a helmet.  I know some
people get caught up in the idea that any possible definition of a word
must be considered when communicating, but that's way too much trouble,
and as someone earlier correctly suggested that I meant to say, silly.)

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

[Stephen Griffiths-2]

On Thu, 2009-10-29 at 15:27 -0700, Patrick Horgan wrote:
> Stephen Griffiths wrote:
> > ... elision by Patrick
> > The name GIMP is not so invaluable that it cannot be changed, also there
> > is a massive number of outsiders who find the name truly unappealing, I
> > do not hear the raw of the people saying they love the name.
> >  
> You can hear my raw here.  I love the name.  It appeals to me as a geek
> (I'm sure that you really hate THAT word, so much more fraught with
> ill-meaning than gimp)

You are not making noise without being prompted.

I didn't say I hated it (but there are those who do hate it), I just
stated that it was not clever.  Wordplay has for many years been
considered the highest form of humour, it has only become less accepted
as such in recent history.  I still accept wordplay to be high humour,
in this case I think GIMP is not very clever.

> there ARE no negative connotations.

gimp and GIMP. UPPERCASE and lowercase. I doubt you needed that
explained to you, but you did seem to play dumb there.

> We know what we mean
Is it wrong that a language be used for communication between more than
a small number of people?

> or eventually become cool
Is that what people think when they look this way "those guys are cool".
'Cool' is a social system only relevant in high-school.

> GIMP has panache.  (N.B. I don't mean the meaning of panache that
> signifies a bunch of feathers or a plume on a helmet.  I know some
> people get caught up in the idea that any possible definition of a
> word
> must be considered when communicating, but that's way too much
> trouble,
> and as someone earlier correctly suggested that I meant to say,
> silly.)

I am glad you found some really sick definition of a word to make your
point.  My question is why didn't you just choose a simpler and more
descriptive word, a word that would not require 4 lines of explanation
to avoid confusion.

You should attempt to communicate in a simpler manner, because it looks
to me like this could have been said as "You have a point of view, boo,
that is stupid".

well, till next time,
Stephen.

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

[Stephen Griffiths-2]

I really mistook the what Patrick was saying here (of which he was kind
enough to make me aware of privately), I apologise for reacting so
quickly.  I think I have already said what I meant to say in the first
two posts and will take the time to bow out from any further
participation.

regards,
Stephen.


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

[Lucian Sabo]

Same thing happend to me when I announced on a forum I created a program named RIOT (an acronym of Radical Image Optimization Tool).
Some people pointed that the name is not good. Quote: "The name is not good. It conveys the impression that the program will make a right mess of users' images."
Meanwhile, the program became quite popular and now nobody says the name is not good :) It is simply a name and people learned to accept (and like it).

My conclusions are:
1. too late to change it
2. let the parents choose the name

Regards,
Lucian

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

[David Gowers]

On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 9:43 AM, Brendan <mailinglist@...> wrote:

> On Thursday 29 October 2009, you wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Brendan <mailinglist@...> wrote:
>> >> All the above comprise a significant factor in why forks are regarded,
>> >> at best, as a necessary evil. All forks dilute branding, which
>> >> introduces user confusion and repels potential users.
>> >
>> > I think it's incorrect to say it repels potential users and leave it at
>> > that. It will also just as likely ATTRACT new users who were put off by
>> > the lame name.
>>
>> That's speculative. We know from past software history that what I
>
> The extent is speculative, the same as you. I know an entire office who said
> they would use it if it changed the name, so it's not nearly as speculative as
> you think.

Fair enough.

>
>> > Call it the Gnu IMP.
>>
>> This has to be facetiousness, doesn't it?
>
> Most of what I say is at least slightly facetious. If they simplify it
> themselves, that's their problem, and not something that is super-obvious.

If we look at the way the photoshop family of products are abbreviated
by people(PS7/CE4/Elements),and GNU projects (bc, bash, tar, Octave,
etc), just plain IMP is reasonably likely. (in fact, GIMP is an oddity
in that the GNU is actually included in the acronym..
if it were more canonical, people would already be calling it Gnu IMP
or IMP). That's fair enough.. IMP *is* a better name (and people who
object to it on religious grounds probably are terminally humorless),
we just should expect it to still manage to be taken as objectionable.

Actually, I'm in favor of your proposition now, you've convinced me.
Gnu IMP is 'backwards compatible' as you say, more in line with other
GNU projects' naming, and could result
in image* improvement in the future.

As long as it's not a fork -- that is, the renaming would need to be official.

* The kind that doesn't have pixels in it :) but, well, the other kind
too I suppose :)

A list of files that would need modification:

HACKING
NEWS
gimpui.pc.in
[a few utility scripts like gimp-zip]
[most files with 'gimp' in the filename would need renaming. that is
>1686 files to rename]
[All enumerations which include 'GIMP' in them]
[.gimp-2.x would need to be migrated to .imp-2.x .. and then symlink
.gimp-2.x to that]
[On Linux, create a symlink 'gimp' pointing at 'imp' (or something like that)]
[We'd need to deliberately avoid changing the XCF and rcfiles format,
which refer to such object types as 'gimp-image-grid',
'GimpDeviceInfo', 'gimp-channel-list'.
Note: some rcfiles include 'gimp' in the names of objects, others do
not. I don't fully understand why.]
[themes would need to be updated to refer to 'imp-*' widget classes
rather than 'gimp-*' widget classes]

All active/'pending' branches would need to be updated to match (this
would be mostly trivial, I expect situations where new enumerations or
files were introduced to be more involved)

This would be quite time-sensitive in order to maintain a functional
GIT repository -- it would need to compile successfully again within 3
days. So it might take a small team just to complete this. Then the
documentation would need to be synchronized with the change
(screenshots, textual references to 'GIMP') fairly promptly after that
-- which is IMO quite hairy due to I18N concerns.

All *gimp* pdb functions would have to be deprecated in preference to
*imp* versions.

.po files would all need to be updated, however this would not need to
be done all in a lump but could be spread over time.

All the above would be best done at the beginning of a development
cycle (eg. when 2.8 has just been released). It would be relatively
free of the potential for invisible bugs -- most problems would show
up as compilation errors.

I believe the above is the minimum required to seriously do that
change. Though of course we could begin with the user-visible things
(binary names, and strings) and progress to the developer side
(filenames and  enumerations).. it would still be vital for it's
success to quickly do the migration on the developer side, which is
the majority of the work involved.

I can see why GIMP developers would want to avoid such a thing. I do
believe that the migration wouldn't require more than a very basic
understanding of the GIMP code base. What it would really need is a) a
great deal of organization and b) an active and moderately large team.
(doing only the user-visible side is a possibility.. but this may
result in confusion where eg. a PDB function is named gimp-* where the
program says it is 'IMP')

PS. 'The GIMP' is anachronistic AFAIK -- GIMP (no 'the') is canonical currently.
PPS. I believe (haven't tested, my GIMP GIT clone is not in working
order currently), that the
option '--program-transform-name=s/gimp/imp/g' to configure would
result in appropriately named binaries (imp-2.7 etc)
_______________________________________________
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@...
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

[Alexia Death-2]

On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 12:40 PM, David Gowers <00ai99@...> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 9:43 AM, Brendan <mailinglist@...> wrote:
> A list of files that would need modification:
>... SINP LONG LIST...

And all of GIMP code. 98% functions are prefixed as gimp. You can try
to grep for gimp on gimp source tree. Forget it. Some English speakers
 discomfort at the name is getting a bit ridiculous IMHO.


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

[Monty Montgomery-2]

> if it were more canonical, people would already be calling it Gnu IMP
> or IMP). That's fair enough.. IMP *is* a better name (and people who
> object to it on religious grounds probably are terminally humorless),

Actually I think there are quite a few people who would be more open
to using the Gimp if the development community were screened for
religious preferences.  I don't see why it's OK to offend the
Christian users, but not ok to offend just the 'prudes'.

We could fork the project to only include Christian developers,
thus...  uh... you all *are* getting this is sarcasm, right?

Sorry, commenting in this thread is like eating Skittles!

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

[RobA]

I honestly don't see the problem people have with the word.

My school-age daughter came home talking about using gimp in school.

I thought great, a progressive schoolboard willing to use open source software.

Alas, she was referring to gimp, the plastic craft lace.  Also known
as boondoggle (which in itself has negative connotations)
http://www.crazy4crafts.org/2006/08/15/plastic-lacing-gimp-or-boondoggle-scoubidou-designs-craft-ideas-and-web-sites/

If an elementary school doesn't have problems with a word because of
other possible definitions of that word, then I can't see why anyone
else should.

A name is a name is a name.  Regardless of past cleverness or intended
wordplay, it is what it is, "Gimp". It is the name.  Deal with it.

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