Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: development questions
On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 08:42:00PM -0500, Michael J. Hammel wrote: > > As already have been pointed out, lot of talk has been going about 2.0 > > being the great change, and something else being in the middle. So > > IMHO going for 2.0 directly would cause a bit of confusion, so I do > > not see any real adventage about starting a number race. > > FWIW - I agree. 2.0 has already been discussed at length as being a > target for GEGL support and there really isn't any need to jump revision > numbers other than "it makes the product sound mature." 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. The switch to GTK2 is an argument, but I don't think version numbers need to match between GIMP and GTK (and GNOME maybe). Let's not invalidate lots of information out there in the net just for marketing purposes. We can save ourselves a lot of confusion. Another argument against the rename: IIRC the changes from 1.0 to 1.2 were also significant. The GIMP release-cycle is very long-term, so users will expect significant changes, if 1.4 get released - just because it took such a long time. Bye, Tino. -- * LINUX - Where do you want to be tomorrow? * http://www.tu-chemnitz.de/linux/tag/ ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Programable layer modes - was Re: [Gimp-developer] useless plead forhonest evrsion numbers :)
On Wednesday 18 June 2003 00:25, Joao S. O. Bueno wrote: > On Tuesday 17 June 2003 18:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ( Marc) (A.) (Lehmann ) > > wrote: > > where > > are the programmable layer effects? > > Hmm..are these the ones I did suggest I could do a couple of weeks > ago? > > I am working on them...unless the freeze is quite soon, It may very > well go into 1.4/2.0 . Although in 1.4.1/2.1 they will be quite > more usable. Oh well. spent the best part of the last houe reading about the GEGL, which I did not know this far. Certainly people HAD tought of programable layer modes before I mentioned it. :-) . But it doesn'seen to be in GEGL either, altought it is quite apropriate for it. I will go on with my work (quite on early stages) on them using the 1.3 codebase, but with an eye in GEGL - If anyone besides me like what I am doing, it wont'be hard to be added to the GEGL core. ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] useless plead for honest evrsion numbers :)
On Tuesday 17 June 2003 18:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ( Marc) (A.) (Lehmann ) wrote: > where > are the programmable layer effects? Hmm..are these the ones I did suggest I could do a couple of weeks ago? I am working on them...unless the freeze is quite soon, It may very well go into 1.4/2.0 . Although in 1.4.1/2.1 they will be quite more usable. -- Este e-mail é, exceto pelas partes citadas de outros e-mails, copyright(c) de João Sebastião de Oliveira Bueno. Nenhuma cópia deste e-mail ou parte do mesmo pode existir nas dependências de, ou em posse de funcionários, de associações protetoras de direitos autorais Brasileiras, dos Estados Unidos da América, ou de outros países. Em particular essa exceção do direito de leitura e posse deste e-mail se extende à ABRA, ABPI, ABES, BSA, RIAA e MPAA. Violadores estão infringindo as leis internacionais de direitos autorais e sujeitos às penalidades cabíveis. Você pode re-utilizar, emendar, acrescentar suas palavras e citar e re-enviar qualquer parte do mesmo, desde que essa nota seja preservada e se não pertencer a alguma das entidades supracitadas. ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: development questions
On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 17:48, Guillermo S. Romero / Familia Romero wrote: > As already have been pointed out, lot of talk has been going about 2.0 > being the great change, and something else being in the middle. So > IMHO going for 2.0 directly would cause a bit of confusion, so I do > not see any real adventage about starting a number race. FWIW - I agree. 2.0 has already been discussed at length as being a target for GEGL support and there really isn't any need to jump revision numbers other than "it makes the product sound mature." I would say that shorter release time frames might be considered once you do get to 2.0, but there isn't any real need to rush to that point. You have plans. They seem fairly good (you'll never get complete agreement on everything, but you do the best you can). Stick with those plans. Mozilla and Evolution are two big projects still in the 1.x range. Linux itself was in 1.x for quite some time. Getting to 2.x doesn't need to be pushed, IMHO (except if your goal is to push GEGL support integration). -- Michael J. Hammel The Graphics Muse [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.graphics-muse.com -- Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. -- Albert Einstein ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] Re: development questions
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (2003-06-17 at 2122.23 +0200):
> So all we need is an even version number... All around GIMP, most
> notably with its toolkit GTK+, the 2.0 era has begun. Should we really
> go for 1.4? I don't think so and everyone me and Mitch talked to (for
> example on #gimp) agreed that the changes since 1.2 warrant the jump
> to 2.0. So unless anyone speaks up with good reasons against calling
> the next release GIMP 2.0, it will probably happen so.
As already have been pointed out, lot of talk has been going about 2.0
being the great change, and something else being in the middle. So
IMHO going for 2.0 directly would cause a bit of confusion, so I do
not see any real adventage about starting a number race.
To mark it as "a lot have been done and it took a lot of time", there
are some other numbers from 1.3 to 2.0 that are even too (ok, only
three make sense, 1.4, 1.6 and 1.8). I find easier to explain that
after 1.2 the next stable is not 1.4 but 1.6 ("the bridge from old to
new") or 1.8 ("the path to 2.0 begins") than explaining that 2.0 is
not the "promised" 2.0.
The first half-explains itself, the later looks as a good way to waste
time explaining to people. Already some time have been invested in the
old naming plan, and there always be docs floating around talking
about the mighty 2.0. It is just about communication, PR or whatever
you want to name it, so the clearer, the better.
Just my opinion, 1.6 or 1.8 sounds great, and there are no old news to
rewrite.
GSR
PS: OK, maybe some places will have to s/1.4/1.whatever/g.
PS2: Name it Hobble4? j/k Bad Sun joke. Sleep time, really.
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: Setting Up Wilber
On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 10:24:51PM +0200, Raphaël Quinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Are there any real numbers on this? Last time I checked the sites I'm > > administrating, the NS4 share was down to _0.25%_. Is really gimp.org that > > much higher up? > > Probably a bit higher, but not that much. I don't have the time to count There are also other considerations... the site could be designed to be more ns4 friendly, and not everybody has 50MB of ram and a whole CPU to waste to still have much slower rendering (and very broken rendering with respect to i18n'd sites). Ok, the last one only pertains to mozilla, and links &c slowly become really useful, but the point is that excluding people from a site without good reasons is always wrong. Doing it for good reasons is fine. Are there good reasons? -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | | ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] useless plead for honest evrsion numbers :)
On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 09:22:23PM +0200, Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So all we need is an even version number... All around GIMP, most > notably with its toolkit GTK+, the 2.0 era has begun. Should we really > go for 1.4? 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 don't think making up numbers just for the marketing is honest or useful for users. 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 the 1.0 => 1.2 jump. So... I'd beg for a little more honesty in version numbering, and a little less marketing. A gimp-2.0 with lots of very nice but minor improvements (where is the modularity? where is support for cmyk? where are the programmable layer effects? and macro capability? even the fact that most perl scripts need not a modification to run does not show major cleanups in that part) is good for initial reaction, but people will aks themeselves where all the great things planned for 2.0 have gone. (Yes, I like the text tool, I etxremely like the undo history.. but that is all nothing major). I really don't think it qualifies as 2.0. That doesn't mean to diminish the work (which is impressive), but I think just randomly jumping on version numbers to have the same version number as everybody else doesn't help - it's just confusing, as version numbers become utterly meaningless. Just my 0.02µ¢, I feel that I had to make this point, don't kill me :) -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | | ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: Setting Up Wilber
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 visiting > www.gimp.org. I had a quick look at the logs without making a full > analyzis and I only saw 15 unique IP addresses using Netscape 4 yesterday > (excluding my own requests when I took the screenshots). But this seems > to vary very much from day to day. Then, is it really worth it to keep kludging backwards compatibility for a five year old, not-at-all standards compliant, fading browser? Given that it can even be made to work with CSS turned off? :-) /* Steinar */ -- Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/ ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: Setting Up Wilber
On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 21:55:03 +0200, "Steinar H. Gunderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 02:48:17PM +0200, Raphaël Quinet wrote: > > Also, the compatibility with Netscape 4.x is > > a big showstopper from my point of view: there is still a significant > > number of people visiting www.gimp.org who are using NS4 and who may not > > be able to switch to another browser (this last point is quite important > > IMHO). > > Are there any real numbers on this? Last time I checked the sites I'm > administrating, the NS4 share was down to _0.25%_. Is really gimp.org that > much higher up? Probably a bit higher, but not that much. I don't have the time to count that right now, but I can try to do that tomorrow if you want. But here is something that I posted in April to the gimp-web list: For those who like statistics, I had another look at the stats for today. In the last 6 hours, there were 103 unique IP addresses using Netscape 4 and visiting www.gimp.org. I excluded the user-agents containing "MSIE", "compatible", "Opera" or some strings commonly used by agents faking their identity (such as those using only the string "Mozilla/4.0" without any other attributes). In the last two days, there were more than 300 unique visitors using Netscape 4. 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. I had a quick look at the logs without making a full analyzis and I only saw 15 unique IP addresses using Netscape 4 yesterday (excluding my own requests when I took the screenshots). But this seems to vary very much from day to day. > (BTW, is the site viewable in NS4 with CSS support turned off?) If you turn off CSS, the layout is still completely broken, but at least the images are not displayed on top of the menu. The menu itself is displayed in the middle of the page with all links side-by-side instead of being displayed in a column (a valign="top" and some s would solve that problem). So the pages looks strange and sometimes the column with the menu is wider than the contents of the page, but at least I did not see any image or text covering other useful parts of the page. -Raphaël ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] calling the next stable release 2.0 instead of1.4
On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 21:22:23 +0200, Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So all we need is an even version number... All around GIMP, most > notably with its toolkit GTK+, the 2.0 era has begun. Should we really > go for 1.4? I don't think so and everyone me and Mitch talked to (for > example on #gimp) agreed that the changes since 1.2 warrant the jump > to 2.0. So unless anyone speaks up with good reasons against calling > the next release GIMP 2.0, it will probably happen so. Well, I am glad to hear that there will be no 1.4. There were so many changes in the development branch that I also feel that it deserves a major release number. However, if this numbering change is confirmed, then we should start communicating this as soon as possible to all developers (looks like this is done now) and all users. There are still many, many references to GIMP 2.0 on various web sites, saying that it should be the version that adds support for 16-bit channels and CMYK. Many Photoshop users (and Cinepaint users, maybe) have been told to wait until 2.0 to get these features. If this will be in 3.0 instead of 2.0, then we should start spreading this information soon in order to avoid bad press later from those who compare the new version to the old release schedule. -Raphaël ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: Setting Up Wilber
On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 02:48:17PM +0200, Raphaël Quinet wrote: > Also, the compatibility with Netscape 4.x is > a big showstopper from my point of view: there is still a significant > number of people visiting www.gimp.org who are using NS4 and who may not > be able to switch to another browser (this last point is quite important > IMHO). Are there any real numbers on this? Last time I checked the sites I'm administrating, the NS4 share was down to _0.25%_. Is really gimp.org that much higher up? (BTW, is the site viewable in NS4 with CSS support turned off?) /* Steinar */ -- Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/ ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Re Re: Setting Up Wilber
On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 09:46:30 -0400, Carol Spears <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2003-06-17 at 1448.17 +0200, Rapha?l Quinet typed this: > [...] > > Anyway, I think that it is better to discuss this on the gimp-web list, > > so I will post a more detailled reply to your message on that list. > > > well, this seems like anarchy to me. perhaps i should just stop mucking > around with it and see what happens to it. > > mutiny on the bounty? > > Rapha?l, you can call it volunteering or mutiny. i will only accept one > of the these two descriptions of this totally audacious email you are > sending lately. Woah! I didn't mean to offend you. And this is certainly not a mutiny or anarchy or whatever. Regarding Netscape 4, I was just repeating what I wrote a while ago on the gimp-web list. I pointed out some problems and suggested a way to solve them (using tables instead of CSS positioning). So this problem is not new and you should not be offended by that. I also mentioned in my last message that I would like to get more information about what you plan to do with wilber because your announcement came as a surprise, did not explain what was planned and sounded like wilber would disapear on very short notice. I am sorry if the tone of my message has offended you, as that was not my intention. Maybe I wrote my first message a bit too quickly because I was both surprised and worried. > do i need to see about giving you permission to commit to the gnomecvs > server so this mutiny can be more than just talk? I have commit access to gnomecvs since a while. And I would certainly be glad to contribute to the gimp-web module, if you are not afraid of letting me change things. As promised, I have posted a more detailled reply to both of your messages (you replied twice to the same message) to the gimp-web list. It contains a paragraph in which I explain some of the things I would like to update in order to support older browsers. I have also included some screenshots of mmmaybe.gimp.org viewed in Netscape 4.79 (see http://www.gimp.org/~raphael/web-gimp/). I am sorry that it took me a bit longer than expected to post my reply, but I could only write it during breaks at work and it took me so long that I decided to finish it after work. I suggest that we continue this discussion on the gimp-web list because it is a bit off-topic for the developers' list. -Raphaël ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] development questions
Hi, david gowers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > is this correct: when 1.4 is released, gegl is expected to be ready > so work can begin on gimp-2.0. if so, when? (in relative sense, > ie. which gimp 1.3.x version will be the version just before 1.4?) Now that you are asking, we can hardly keep try to mistify the plans for GIMP any longer... You are referring to a plan that was made almost three years ago. It outlines that the next stable GIMP release will be called 1.4. This release is supposed to be followed by the great core-rewrite which will involve using the wonderful GEGL. Inevitably, work on the 1.3 tree took longer than projected but there is light on the horizon. A few features are still missing but the tree seems to be in good shape. During the last months the 1.3 codebase has undergone quite some testing already, but we have more open bug reports for 1.2 (108 bugs) than for 1.3 (30 bugs). We can thus expect that it won't take too long to get 1.3 to a point where it deserves an even version number. So all we need is an even version number... All around GIMP, most notably with its toolkit GTK+, the 2.0 era has begun. Should we really go for 1.4? I don't think so and everyone me and Mitch talked to (for example on #gimp) agreed that the changes since 1.2 warrant the jump to 2.0. So unless anyone speaks up with good reasons against calling the next release GIMP 2.0, it will probably happen so. Well, of course your next question is, when will this happen? We never gave any realtime schedules and I won't give one today, but I can tell you what is still missing... Most of the things that are missing in 1.3 are listed in Bugzilla as enhancement request. Not all of them will make it into the stable release but we should at least consider all bugs that have milestone set to 1.3.x. Whenever we decide that we basically want that feature but that it's not worth to delay 2.0 for it, we should change its milestone from 1.3.x to FUTURE. We should very soon declare a feature freeze. Only bug-fixes and features listed with milestone 1.3.x will go into the source tree then. Among the things that need to be finished are the path and text tools and the integration of the plug-in preview widget. There should also be no major regression against 1.2. The first step to do now is thus to make sure that everything of importance has a Bugzilla entry and milestones are reasonably set. Once the major missing features are in, we will change the few places in the build that now refer to gimp14. Releases after this point will be called pre-releases for 2.0 so they get heavy testing. Hopefully 2.0.0 will see the light of day shortly after. I really don't want to make up a schedule but of course we hope to be able to bring out The GIMP at the GIMP Developers Conference this summer. Let's see if we can make this happen; it would surely make a good reason for a nice party in the GIMP Tent: https://wiki.camp.ccc.de/Camp/view/Main/GimpTent > also, i have a proposition for a simple gui enhancement which could > drastically boost speed of access to many things and usefulness of > accelerator keys. however, while it is *simple*, it is comparitively > large in scope (every registered dialog eg colorselector, layers, > tool options would require an individual accel-path added, and gtk > menu code would require enhancements). is this something i should > make a patch for, or something that could be added to the proposals/ > in gimp2/ cvs? While such unified keybindings were a goal for 1.3 development, I fear we have to postpone that idea. Of course you could start to work on it now, but we can hardly accept it for 2.0. What we still can do for 2.0 is to improve the keybindings we install per default. I'm sure there is room for improvement without any code changes, let alone the need for GTK+ enhancements. Someone just needs to look over the keybinding we use now and make sure they are as reasonably assigned as possible. If you think that the GTK+ menu system needs improvement, it's probably best to involve the GTK+ developers. What about proposing your changes on the gtk-devel list? 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. I hope that Mitch will write another reply that deals with your proposed changes to the menu system in more detail... Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] development questions
is this correct: when 1.4 is released, gegl is expected to be ready so work
can begin on gimp-2.0.
if so, when? (in relative sense, ie. which gimp 1.3.x version will be the
version just before 1.4?)
also, i have a proposition for a simple gui enhancement which could
drastically boost speed of access to many things and usefulness of
accelerator keys. however, while it is *simple*, it is comparitively large in
scope (every registered dialog eg colorselector, layers, tool options would
require an individual accel-path added, and gtk menu code would require
enhancements). is this something i should make a patch for, or something that
could be added to the proposals/ in gimp2/ cvs?
essentially it would enhance menu accels so you could share specific
shortcuts, eg, sit in the color selector picking colors and hitting 'a' to
add them to the palette.
here is a paste of the doc i wrote:
Shared keyboard shortcuts - part gimp, part gtk
currently, keyboard shortcuts only work in their specific context.
having shortcuts that are shared between more than one context (still owned by
only one) would help greatly. for instance palette construction would be much
much quicker if i could assign a shortcut to 'add' and
share that with the colorpicker, so i could eg. pick color, 'a', pick
color,'a' until the palette is finished. gradient creation could be
speeded up similarly (stack up colors in the 'save to' slots, then use the
saved colors
to create a large chunk of gradient quickly).
. likely format for shared shortcuts would be:
"(gtk-shared-accel-path
/New Color)
(note that ColorEditor gets its own accel group, as would every
selection dialog eg Brushes,Gradients..)
so you can share key-accels for specific menu items rather than sharing
the whole class. a shared accel would require the accel being shared to
be already defined. this can be done by writing shared accels to menurc
last.
making the accels visible would mean adding an item to the menu, like
"(PaletteEditor/New Color)". note the brackets.
gtk would show the shortcut like this:
"(a)" rather than "a", to denote that you must go to, in this case, the
palette editor, if you want to change the key combination for that accel.
how to interface with that?
'delete' to remove the current context from the list of user-contexts
for a shared accel.
adding would require an additional menu item at the bottom of the
menu, like an inversion of the 'tearoff' menu item, on which you could
press 'insert' to add a shared accel or add current context to the users
of an existing shared-accel.
making the accels visible would mean adding an item to the menu, like
"(PaletteEditor/New Color)". gtk would show the shortcut like this:
"(a)" rather than "a", to denote that you must go to, in this case, the
palette editor, if you want to change the key combination for that accel.
(eof)
'how to interface with that' can hopefully be improved upon.
i also have a doc about weighting subsampling and optionally disabling
subsampling in a clean way. (attached -it's short)
i have some others (eg. slight colorselector interface cleanup) that are less
certain.
anyway.. what should i best do with these? option to disable sub-pixel positioning , that is, force all coordinates for
drawing operations to be exactly centered in each pixel.
this greatly improves the smudge and clone tools, which ideally operate on a very
specifically defined area.
weighting for subsampling: currently, drawing diagonal lines with a
1-pixel brush gives the impression of lines that are apparently 1.5
pixels thick. the weight value would effect the apparent thickness(AT), in
other words, how optimistic the subsampling is about how much of a pixel
falls into an area.
algorithymically, it would probably be a multiplication factor applied
to pixels that are not wholly 'inside the area of the brush' (pixels at
the edge of a brush that are getting subsampled)
subsampled pixels that are at the edge could be found by comparing their subsampled
opacity
with their original opacity.
(ideally:
weight = 0 produces AT of 1,
weight = 0.5 produces current AT of 1.5
weight = 0.99 produces AT of 1.99)
this would effect the sharpness and apparent thickness of the edges of most lines
drawn with
any brush. 90 degree lines drawn via shift-click would be unaffected
(no subsampling to do).
(for gimp-2.0)
hard edge should be a toggle for paintbrush (brushing with ink is hard-edged)
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] Re Re: Setting Up Wilber
On 2003-06-17 at 1448.17 +0200, Rapha?l Quinet typed this: > On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 09:40:10 -0400, Carol Spears <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [...] > > one thing that i didn't mean was to ruffle any feathers. sorry. i am > > going to go crazy if the newish site doesn't get moved. There is a > > whole bunch of disc space (right now) and if we wait and plan and work > > through what will be done with it, it will never get done. > > I understand and I would also like to replace the old site by the new > one. But I have some concerns about what will happen to the useful > information that is still available on the old site and has not been > included into the new one. Also, the compatibility with Netscape 4.x is > a big showstopper from my point of view: there is still a significant > number of people visiting www.gimp.org who are using NS4 and who may not > be able to switch to another browser (this last point is quite important > IMHO). It would be acceptable for the new site to look bad in NS4, as > long as the users could see most of the information and follow the links. > But currently, the new site is not usable with NS4. I will post some > screenshots showing the problems. > > Anyway, I think that it is better to discuss this on the gimp-web list, > so I will post a more detailled reply to your message on that list. > well, this seems like anarchy to me. perhaps i should just stop mucking around with it and see what happens to it. mutiny on the bounty? Rapha?l, you can call it volunteering or mutiny. i will only accept one of the these two descriptions of this totally audacious email you are sending lately. do i need to see about giving you permission to commit to the gnomecvs server so this mutiny can be more than just talk? carol -- Remember, UNIX spelled backwards is XINU. -Mt. ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] Re: Re: there is hope for gimp-perl-1.3 (was: red-eye-removal)
On 2003-06-17 at 1008.32 +0200, Marc A. Lehmann typed this: > On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 10:20:03PM -0400, Carol Spears <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > anyone who can talk about their GIMP contribution in terms of months > > should only recieve my gratitude and awe. seriously. :) > > Ahem.. "in some months", not "for some months" :() The actual contribution > might be relatively small, especially since it's not anymore a direct > contribution to gimp, but a contribution to a different cvs module now. > > In addition, i only "contribute" to projects when I need something for > myself... so it's all purely egotistical. > > > months like before gimpcon2? > > Good question... so far, it looks easier as expected. > whee! it is like the old days when i got gimp-perl because i wanted it :) i was actually able to remember how to build a perl makefile on the first attempt. thanks! just 'cause i don't want to read it, doesn't mean that i won't use it. also, fyi, i needed to use perl to fix gimp-python while waiting for debian testing to upgrade their default python. so, well, there. carol -- We reject: kings, presidents, and voting. We believe in: rough consensus and working code. -- Dave Clark ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: Setting Up Wilber
On Mon, 16 Jun 2003 09:40:10 -0400, Carol Spears <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > one thing that i didn't mean was to ruffle any feathers. sorry. i am > going to go crazy if the newish site doesn't get moved. There is a > whole bunch of disc space (right now) and if we wait and plan and work > through what will be done with it, it will never get done. I understand and I would also like to replace the old site by the new one. But I have some concerns about what will happen to the useful information that is still available on the old site and has not been included into the new one. Also, the compatibility with Netscape 4.x is a big showstopper from my point of view: there is still a significant number of people visiting www.gimp.org who are using NS4 and who may not be able to switch to another browser (this last point is quite important IMHO). It would be acceptable for the new site to look bad in NS4, as long as the users could see most of the information and follow the links. But currently, the new site is not usable with NS4. I will post some screenshots showing the problems. Anyway, I think that it is better to discuss this on the gimp-web list, so I will post a more detailled reply to your message on that list. -Raphaël ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: there is hope for gimp-perl-1.3 (was:red-eye-removal)
On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 10:20:03PM -0400, Carol Spears <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > anyone who can talk about their GIMP contribution in terms of months > should only recieve my gratitude and awe. seriously. :) Ahem.. "in some months", not "for some months" :() The actual contribution might be relatively small, especially since it's not anymore a direct contribution to gimp, but a contribution to a different cvs module now. In addition, i only "contribute" to projects when I need something for myself... so it's all purely egotistical. > months like before gimpcon2? Good question... so far, it looks easier as expected. -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | | ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
