[Gimp-developer] Common dir of plug-ins (patch about OK button)
OK, I have been reviewing the common dir, I think I rearranged all them so they have the OK in the new place. I also have read some code (that is the only reason for so boring task) and next will try to finish the others as well as improve thos that look pretty bad (like five buttons, of which three just change things, but are not reset | cancel | ok, not anything in that line). The gz was done with cvs diff -u in the common dir, and does not include the patchs I already sent to sven & mitch. GSR gimp-plug-ins-common.patch.gz Description: OK button patch
Re: [Gimp-developer] Developers and users (was: Bug week like thing for GIMP?)
On Wednesday 28 November 2001 15:17, Sven Neumann wrote: > Hi, > > Lourens Veen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Okay, so I misjudged the state of development Gimp is in. I remember > > trying to find out some time ago how hard it would be to contribute > > things to Gimp, but I gave up pretty soon. > > could you explain how you tried to find out? I can't really imagine what > difficulties you had and it would be interesting to know. I browsed things for a bit, and I think I know the problem I had back then. I totally missed the devel-docs directory. *DOH*. I had a look around now (in the past 5 minutes, I'm in the middle of exams here) and it's pretty good. What I miss though is a rather high-level overview, something along the lines of "Gimp consists of libgimp, which contains the drawing functions, gimpui, which is the user interface, . These are connected by ". Having all the interface definitions is very good, but I think it would be handy if you could read how it's being used rather than how to use it. Lourens ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Thoughts on CMYK, and getting it without implementing it.
"pcg"@goof.com ( Marc) (A.) (Lehmann ) wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 05:51:14PM +, "Jens Ch. Restemeier" ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >2. Associate sRGB or any other colourspace with the saved data in > > > tiff/eps. It doesn't matter wether it's true or not, just give > > > programs something to depend on. > > > > Well, actually this would be true. sRGB is defined using the phosphors > > standartised for HDTV and used for monitors. > > Ehrm. Each and every monitor phosphor is different. lighting is > different. Contrast settings are different Okay, let's write this in other words: sRGB is based on ITU-R BT.709 primaries which are for example standartised for HDTV and should be reasonably close to most computer monitors, too. And if you don't adjust your monitor for your lighting conditions you can't expect any colourmanagement to work. My point is/was, if you tag your graphics as sRGB you are as right as you can get without doing real colourmanagement (i.e. translating from your screen into a specific coloursystem). Reading material: http://www.inforamp.net/~poynton/ColorFAQ.html http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/colour/rainbow.html http://www.srgb.com/ > > And as gimp does no colour management except for a gamma correction on > > display we can ass assume that the image is in sRGB colourspace. > > We can't ;) I know. Jens P.S.: I CC'ed this back to the list. ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] info
On 28 Nov 2001, at 9:38, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Please send me what will happen when I want to use Gimp for somthing I > made up and want to sell. I make 3D animations and I would like to > sometimes use Gimp for that purpose. Do I need to register or do I > have to have some licencion? Please send me answer or email adress for > someone who can answer me If you can. The original art you create with GIMP is completely yours. If you incorporate art that is made by others, then you should contact these others for a license (assuming this incorporation does not constitute fair use or whatever your country's copyright laws allow). GIMP's license is the GNU General Public License, which is notorious in that does not concern itself with use, only with distribution and modification (of the software that is). In most countries except the USA, copyright law does not concern itself with use and therefore even if a license talks about how you are allowed to use a certain program, it has no legal value. HTH, -- branko collin [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] info
Hi! Please send me what will happen when I want to use Gimp for somthing I made up and want to sell. I make 3D animations and I would like to sometimes use Gimp for that purpose. Do I need to register or do I have to have some licencion? Please send me answer or email adress for someone who can answer me If you can. Thanx Rado -- Chcete vyhra knihy? Zapojte sa do vianocnej sutaze na http://www.knihy.sme.sk/ ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Gimp 2?
Hi, Laramie Leavitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Kelly Martin wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 02:48:33PM -0700, Laramie Leavitt wrote: > > > > > Is anyone actively working on GIMP 2? > > > > Insofar as there is activity on GIMP 1.4, yes. > > > > Kelly > > > > Is anyone working on it insofar as it relates to GEGL and all that? > If I understand this correctly, Gimp 2 will use an entirely different > internal engine. The plug-ins will likely not work, and numerous > other changes will render Gimp 2 as an entirely new entity with > little in common with Gimp, really... > > So, why not work on Gimp 1.3 and Gimp 2 in parallel? it will not be that different. At the moment we are refactoring all the code around the GIMP-1.0 core to make it more hackable and more functional. The result shall be called GIMP-1.4. That should give us a nice code-base that allows us to replace the core functions which something based on GEGL without the need to change the framework around the core. So, if anyone wants to hack on GIMP-2 now, she either should help with 1.4 or work on GEGL, the PUPUS rendering pipeline or other integral parts of the GIMP-2.0 core. Salut, Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Developers and users (was: Bug week like thing for GIMP?)
Hi, Lourens Veen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Okay, so I misjudged the state of development Gimp is in. I remember trying > to find out some time ago how hard it would be to contribute things to Gimp, > but I gave up pretty soon. could you explain how you tried to find out? I can't really imagine what difficulties you had and it would be interesting to know. > In another thread Rebecca Walter suggested > creating a TODO for developers that want to help. I'd like to suggest they > make a HOWTODO, because even if you want to help, you have this 15MB pile of > source in front of you and not much of an idea of where to start. Some time > ago I read the documentation that comes with GEGL, which is quite a lot of > code too with a weird pseudo-language as an added bonus, but it's much easier > to understand the structure of the code if you have a nice doc that explains > what's what. the new code is self-explanatory ;-) No, fun aside, we plan to document the internal API using gtk-doc at some point (when it settles a bit). Salut, Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Gimp 2?
On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Laramie Leavitt wrote: > On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Kelly Martin wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 02:48:33PM -0700, Laramie Leavitt wrote: >>> Is anyone actively working on GIMP 2? >> >> Insofar as there is activity on GIMP 1.4, yes. >> > Is anyone working on it insofar as it relates to GEGL and all that? > If I understand this correctly, Gimp 2 will use an entirely different > internal engine. The plug-ins will likely not work, and numerous > other changes will render Gimp 2 as an entirely new entity with > little in common with Gimp, really... But it would not make much sense to start working on 2.0 before 1.3 is a bit more stable. Even if there will be some significant changes in the architecture (e.g., GEGL) and many parts of the code will have to be rewritten, this does not mean that everything will start again from scratch. It would be better to wait until a reasonably stable version of 1.3 exists before starting the work on 1.9 or 2.0; otherwise someone would have to spend a lot of time merging all the changes to the user interface and all new features that are still being added to 1.3. Currently, 1.3 is still a moving target (one that moves faster than you think, thanks to Mitch and Sven). For more information, you can also have a look at http://developer.gimp.org/ and look at last year's proposal about the future of the Gimp. > > So, why not work on Gimp 1.3 and Gimp 2 in parallel? Besides what I wrote above, another reason is that all developers who could start working on version 2 are currently spending a lot of time on 1.3. If you know someone who is not busy working on 1.3 and who has the skills and the time to start working on 2.x (maybe you?), then please go ahead and propose a new branch in CVS so that the work can start. Good luck! ;-) -Raphael ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
