Bump......? Any core devs able to comment pls? On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 11:30 PM, Neil <neildev...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Have looked some more at the various patches in the bugzilla list. > > After extra scrutiny of Luidnel's patch (9b6c9e1), I now realise that this > is the very patch where Michael Natterer comments at the top that he has > altered it so as to not "spit messages", but the patch then makes iwarp.c > do precisely that. I am now suspecting that iwarp.c got missed while the > patch was being edited... :-) Correct? > > In comment 26 (https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=155733#c26), > Michael says that gimpressionist *should* warn, as it's interactive-only. > But what does interactive-only mean? I initially took it to mean that if > you tried to "repeat" it would bring back up the dialog box. Gimpressionist > doesn't do that though - it simply reapplies the same effect to a new > selection each time you "repeat". In contrast, iwarp would fit my concept > of what "interactive-only" means, as if you try to "repeat", it *does* > bring up the dialog box, so it seems that it really can't ever function > without a dialog box. > > I've also noticed that a whole bunch of plugins do issue a g_message() > before they bail out (including I think all of the ones patched by Bill > Skaggs). > > So... I could use some guidance from core devs here (i.e. the people > who'll be accepting/rejecting any patches). My own preference would > certainly be for all plugins to issue a warning (in the form of a > g_message() call or even a dialog) if they are about to do nothing because > _mask_intersect() returns false. But if there is some argument against this > we should patch the rest to stop doing it for consistency. >
_______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list gimp-developer-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
