http://imagej.273.s1.nabble.com/Non-Uniform-X-Y-Z-Units-Patch-tp5008492p5008506.html
> Hi Curtis,
>
> Thanks for the very helpful response.
>
> I would caution against hacking on ImageJ1's
> > calibration logic too much. Firstly, it needs to remain backwards
> > compatible with existing macros and plugins. And secondly, anything which
> > makes ImageJ1's calibration logic more complex at this point will also
> make
> > ImageJ2's job of backwards compatibility more complex -- and we have
> enough
> > on our hands already, there. I would rather see developers start
> migrating
> > to the ImageJ2 data structures when they need things like nonlinear
> > calibration, so that ImageJ1 does not have to worry about that problem at
> > all, and we can all move forward together as a community.
> >
>
> I can understand the concern about changing the behavior of the calibration
> and agree that waiting for IJ2 would be better. The changes I proposed were
> more about the UI being consistent about accurately showing the state
> calibration units using the existing API for storing & accessing
> calibration metadata. I think that these changes are relatively safe since
> its about the UI being true to the data model.
>
>
>
> > I encourage you to edit the Community section of the ImageJ
> > wiki's FAQ to add a question about community contributions, so that
> others
> > will not have to ask on the mailing list next time!
> >
http://wiki.imagej.net/FAQ#Community>
>
> I made an attempt at documenting this on the FAQ as a new question
> <
>
http://wiki.imagej.net/Frequently_Asked_Questions#How_do_I_contribute_a_bug_fix.2C_a_patch.2C_or_propose_an_idea_for_a_change_to_the_community.3F> >.
> Take a look and see if I got it approximately right.
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
> --
> ImageJ mailing list:
http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/list.html>