>From what I expected and understood from the Future of Gimp RFC:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg03656.html
Gimp 2.0 will indeed have 16-bit per colour value, CMYK, integration with
GEGL, etc. If there's still work in this direction, then I suggest making
it version 2.0, and ke
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 01:40:17PM +1000, Owen wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 11:41:20 -0400
> Carol Spears <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > maybe we can jump it up to 2 simply because everyone seems to be
> > involved again :)
>
> Follow Mr Knuth's technique
> Call this one 1.4 which would be foll
On 06/18/03 07:37, Sven Neumann wrote:
> "Branko Collin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> IMHO, Guillermo Romero's suggestion of making it 1.6 or 1.8 is a
>> nice compromise.
>
> Hmm, it should be either 1.4 because it's into people's head already
> or 2.0 because it's worth a major number incr
I say we just use 2.0 for the first stable tree using GEGL. This entire
argument sucks, imho. The first stable tree using GEGL has been called 2.0 for
so long, why call it anything else now?
It isnt about GTK2, or about Gnome2, or about any thing else. Its just what
someone started calling it, and
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 11:41:20 -0400
Carol Spears <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> maybe we can jump it up to 2 simply because everyone seems to be
> involved again :)
Follow Mr Knuth's technique
Call this one 1.4 which would be followed by
1.41 then
1.414 ... 1.4142136 ad infinitum
This has the advan
http://wiki.gimp.org/gimp/
feel free to edit that
carol
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 13:10:26 +0200
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Rapha=EBl?= Quinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reasons for calling it 2.0:
- GTK+ is at 2.2 (maybe 2.4 by the time the next GIMP is out), so we
would at least get the same major release number even if the minor
number is diff
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 11:35:51PM +0200, Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Perhaps I told one or even two people involved in the computer
> magazine business about it when I tried to get some support for the
> conference this summer.
What did you tell them, that gimp-2.0 will be released
On 18 Jun 2003, at 23:35, Sven Neumann wrote:
> Hans Breuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Actually a few magazines already know that the next stable
> > release is supposed to be 2.0 for some time already."
>
> Perhaps I told one or even two people involved in the computer
> magazine busine
Hi,
"Branko Collin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> It would also be nice to have people from LCMS, gimp-print, libart
>> (Raph?), gnome-canvas, gobject, sodipodi, sketch, Xr and libxml. Plus
>> the ones I didn't mention. You are right, I should have choosen a more
>> open wording here...
>
> I wa
Hi,
Hans Breuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Instead of that, please try to read _and understand_ the arguments
> other people have against your decision,
Decision? There is no decision. I admit that I didn't expect this
reaction but the mail that started all this wasn't meant as a
proclamation
On 18 Jun 2003, at 22:56, Sven Neumann wrote:
> "Branko Collin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Assuming that one of the possible directions for the GIMP is GEGL,
> > and assuming also that that is one of the possible directions for
> > Cinepaint, we might want to extend this invitation to GEGL
Hi,
"Branko Collin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Assuming that one of the possible directions for the GIMP is GEGL,
> and assuming also that that is one of the possible directions for
> Cinepaint, we might want to extend this invitation to GEGL and
> Cinepaint developers and users.
It would
On 18 Jun 2003, at 16:19, Sven Neumann wrote:
> Hi friends of Wilber,
>
> most of you should have already hurt about it but yet another
> announcement of the camp can't possibly hurt and I will try to focus
> more on the users point of view this time...
Assuming that one of the possible directio
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 07:20:13PM +0200, Hans Breuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Sven,
> is it time to flame again ?
Please, although I am easily at flaming, I do not intend to do it, nor was
it my intent to put off Sven, who works _so_ much, nor is it useful to
start a flamewar with sven, wh
Hi Sven,
is it time to flame again ?
Instead of that, please try to read _and understand_ the
arguments other people have against your decision, or how
should one understand :
"Actually a few magazines already know that the next stable
release is supposed to be 2.0 for some time
Sven Neumann wrote:
> - New RGB->Indexed quantizer
Although this should generally be pretty good and better
than the old quantizer, I was hoping to do a nice long
tweaking'n'tuning session for this in the 1.3 timeframe, which is
where things get sexy. Unfortunately it didn't work out like
that bec
Hi,
Marc kept stating that there are no user-visible changes in GIMP-1.3.
I really don't know how much time he spent with GIMP-1.3 but I doubt
that he is aware of the amount of changes that have been made. To
clarify things a bit and to justify a 2.0 version number for this
release, I made a compr
On 2003-06-18 at 1218.44 +0200, Tino Schwarze typed this:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 11:58:06AM +0200, Sven Neumann wrote:
>
> > > Well, all the agruments I see in favour of 2.0 are always of the form
> > > "well, evereybody else has 2.0". Well, gtk+2 is at 2.2, msoffice is at
> > > 2003 etc..
> >
On 2003-06-17 at 2249.44 +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson typed this:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 10:24:51PM +0200, Rapha?l Quinet wrote:
> > I hope that the number of Netscape 4 users has decreased since then, but
> > it is likely that there are still more than a couple of them visiting
> > www.gimp.org.
Hi friends of Wilber,
most of you should have already hurt about it but yet another
announcement of the camp can't possibly hurt and I will try to focus
more on the users point of view this time...
The GIMP users and developers will be represented at the Chaos
Communication Congress 2003. This is
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 11:50:25 +0200, Raphaël Quinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But I had a look at the current log file for today and I counted
> 10192 unique IP addresses in total. In the meantime (since the last
> message that I posted 2 hours ago), the number of visitors using NS4
> has incre
python has a template system that might answer all of these issues.
cvs already does whatever cvs wants with the version numbers. but the
person building their gimp could fill in the version number of their
choice, in my gimpenv script or something similar.
i don't know how to build an autoconf
i use debian. debian seems to use what ever freaking version number
they would like to. lets talk about that instead.
maybe we can jump it up to 2 simply because everyone seems to be
involved again :)
carol
--
The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up.
__
Hi,
david gowers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>As far as I know, the gimp2 CVS module is dead. I'm not sure if it
>>makes sense to revive it. Especially since the code that is probably
>>going to become 2.0 lives in module gimp.
>
> you should document that more publicly then. searching for 'gimp
Sven Neumann wrote:
>If you think that the GTK+ menu system needs improvement, it's
>probably best to involve the GTK+ developers.
yes.
>What about proposing
>your changes on the gtk-devel list?
will do.
>As far as I know, the gimp2 CVS module is dead. I'm not sure if it
>makes sense to reviv
Hi,
"Branko Collin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The switch from GTK+-1.2 to 2.0 was a lot smaller than
>> what we have to offer for GIMP now.
>
> IMHO, Guillermo Romero's suggestion of making it 1.6 or 1.8 is a
> nice compromise.
Hmm, it should be either 1.4 because it's into people's head
Hi,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tino Schwarze) writes:
>> Such widespread information? There is one single document that is
>> publically available that outlines a roadmap for the future of the
>> GIMP.
>
> It's in the heads of the people. I guess, it's also on some web pages,
> written in books and maga
On 18 Jun 2003, at 13:04, Sven Neumann wrote:
> The switch from GTK+-1.2 to 2.0 was a lot smaller than
> what we have to offer for GIMP now.
IMHO, Guillermo Romero's suggestion of making it 1.6 or 1.8 is a
nice compromise.
--
branko collin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
__
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 11:52:53AM +0200, Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > well-known as "The GEGL GIMP with CMYK etc.". It is very hard to change
> > such wide-spread information. And I don't see a real reason either.
>
> Such widespread information?
Try google with such harmless keyw
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 11:58:06AM +0200, Sven Neumann wrote:
> > Well, all the agruments I see in favour of 2.0 are always of the form
> > "well, evereybody else has 2.0". Well, gtk+2 is at 2.2, msoffice is at
> > 2003 etc..
>
> I give shit on msoffice but GTK+ is the GIMP ToolKit and we will ha
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 11:52:53AM +0200, Sven Neumann wrote:
> > I'm also against changing the semantics of "GIMP 2.0". It's already
> > well-known as "The GEGL GIMP with CMYK etc.". It is very hard to change
> > such wide-spread information. And I don't see a real reason either.
>
> Such widesp
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 11:58:06 +0200, Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Frankly, I won't be oposed very much to calling it gimp-2.0, but
> > everybody is expecting some _major_ release for 2.0, and 1.2 => 2.0,
> > while having many enhancements, is not, in my opinion, much bigger
> > than t
Hi,
writes:
>> I give shit on msoffice but GTK+ is the GIMP ToolKit and we will have
>> a hard time to explain why even it's major release numbers diverge.
>
> Pardon? Why would you ever have a problem explaining why version
> numbers of *different* packages *differ*?
>
> You don't even have a p
Hi,
writes:
> A major version should be reserved for major changes... There is no
> major change in the user-interface. (In the code, yes, the UI, no).
Sorry, but I have to disagree here. I do indeed believe that there is
a major change in the GIMP user interface. This change goes a long way
fu
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 11:58:06AM +0200, Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "well, evereybody else has 2.0". Well, gtk+2 is at 2.2, msoffice is at
> > 2003 etc..
>
> I give shit on msoffice but GTK+ is the GIMP ToolKit and we will have
> a hard time to explain why even it's major release
Hi,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] ( Marc) (A.) (Lehmann )> writes:
> Well, all the agruments I see in favour of 2.0 are always of the form
> "well, evereybody else has 2.0". Well, gtk+2 is at 2.2, msoffice is at
> 2003 etc..
I give shit on msoffice but GTK+ is the GIMP ToolKit and we will have
a hard time
Hi,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tino Schwarze) writes:
> I'm also against changing the semantics of "GIMP 2.0". It's already
> well-known as "The GEGL GIMP with CMYK etc.". It is very hard to change
> such wide-spread information. And I don't see a real reason either.
Such widespread information? There i
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 10:04:46 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adam Sjøgren) wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 09:36:18 +0200, Raphaël Quinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I just re-counted now: the current access log for the last 18 hours
> > contains 140 unique IP addresses using NS4.x (not 4.0, doh!). For
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 09:55:52AM +0100, Austin Donnelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I like the text tool, I etxremely like the undo history.. but that is all
> > nothing major).
>
> But the undo history is not a new 1.3 feature, it was introduced by me in
> one of the 1.1 testing series and h
> (Yes,
> I like the text tool, I etxremely like the undo history.. but that is all
> nothing major).
But the undo history is not a new 1.3 feature, it was introduced by me in
one of the 1.1 testing series and has thus been in all the 1.2 versions.
Austin
___
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 09:36:18 +0200, Raphaël Quinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just re-counted now: the current access log for the last 18 hours
> contains 140 unique IP addresses using NS4.x (not 4.0, doh!). For
> the day before, 226. For Monday, 152.
Out of how many in total?
Best rega
On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 22:49:44 +0200, "Steinar H. Gunderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 10:24:51PM +0200, Raphaël Quinet wrote:
> > I hope that the number of Netscape 4 users has decreased since then, but
> > it is likely that there are still more than a couple of them visit
43 matches
Mail list logo
