On 9/22/11 4:39 AM, Charlie Clark wrote:
Hi Alex,
Am 22.09.2011, 00:37 Uhr, schrieb Alex Clark <acl...@aclark.net>:
Hi,
Can anyone comment on the following with any intelligence?
- https://github.com/collective/Pillow/issues/10
As Pillow is primarily a packaging fork, I don't really want to go
changing the image code ;-). But, if it looks like a reasonable fix I
may consider it.
I'd suggest that the issue be extended to include a test file and result
and tested against PIL 1.1.7. As a happy user of Pillow I wouldn't like
it to see it gain any internal patches.
Right, in other words if I understand you correctly any internal patches
should only be applied if they directly correspond to previous or
upcoming changes in PIL itself. Even then, the preferred approach would
be to bulk-import the next PIL release into Pillow (and replace the
1.1.7 release code).
So, this issue should be filed against PIL where we can track it
appropriately (whether that means we wait for a new PIL release then
re-package it, or cherry pick and include specific things we know will
be in the next PIL release would depend on the circumstances.)
(IIRC there may have be one other fix like this, I'll dig back through
and check.)
Alex
Charlie
--
Alex Clark ยท http://aclark.net
_______________________________________________
Image-SIG maillist - Image-SIG@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/image-sig
