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
Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: Setting Up Wilber
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 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? :-) Doh! slaps forehead I'm really stupid! I said that I had a quick look at the logs and I found only 15 unique IP addresses. But I was wrong. I missed 211 of them, bringing the total to 226. That makes a difference... Yesterday, I ran grep on the access log, then a grep -v for the strings containing MSIE, compatible and other stuff in order to exclude the browsers (and some robots) claiming to be NS4 but that were not really NS4. Unfortunately, I made a big, stupid mistake: instead of doing a grep for Mozilla/4, I did a grep for Mozilla/4.0. In other words, I only counted the requests using version 4.0, but not any other 4.x version. Oops! That's what I get for doing something quickly before going home without thinking too much about it. :-( 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. To get an overview of the last week (excluding yesterday, which may be biased), I merged the logs from the 10th to the 16th of June and found 1084 unique IP addresses using NS4.x. -Raphaël ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] Re: Setting Up Wilber
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 regards, -- Hey, maybe they could figure out a way to make me Adam Sjøgren care about how many stop bits I'm using, that'd be [EMAIL PROTECTED] so retro! ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
RE: [Gimp-developer] useless plead for honest evrsion numbers :)
(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 ___ 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 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 has thus been in all the 1.2 versions. That means either a) I don't pay attention to new features so I should not comment or b) Even less major features for a major release, or both. I see now, it's not mentioned under File=Dialogs as all the other dialogs, thus I kept not finding it. *sigh* -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ 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 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 the day before, 226. For Monday, 152. Out of how many in total? I didn't check for all days, because doing a sort -u for all IP addresses from the logs takes longer and consumes more resources than if I limit the query to the NS4 users first. Also, I don't know if the traffic statistics are supposed to be published at all. 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 increased from 140 to 165. But does the total really matter? If we have more than a thousand visitors using NS4 in the last week, does it matter if this is a thousand out of 10,000, a million or a billion? We are not a commercial site counting the visitors to see how many of them get banner ads or anything like that; we are counting how many GIMP users can get help from the GIMP web site. See also Marc's message. -Raphaël ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: development questions
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 is one single document that is publically available that outlines a roadmap for the future of the GIMP. This document mentions a few numbers in order to give things a name to call them by. I don't see any problem in releasing a new document now that updates these numbers. The switch to GTK2 is an argument, but I don't think version numbers need to match between GIMP and GTK (and GNOME maybe). After all GTK+ is the GIMP toolkit. This is IMO a very good argument for calling the next GIMP release 2.0. Actually it's the only good argument that is out there (and I don't see any good one against it). 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. I really believe that the current codebase is a significant change that warrants to increase the major release number. If you looked at the code you would have noticed that every single file was touched. Besides some of the basic functionality, the GIMP core and the user interface has been completely rewritten. There is not much in the app directory that resembles the old 1.2 code. If that's not worth an update in major release, I really don't know what would warrant it. Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] useless plead for honest evrsion numbers :)
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 to explain why even it's major release numbers diverge. 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. You obviously didn't look at the code. Frankly, the libgimp API hasn't changed much but that's probably a good thing t'since it means that it is easy to migrate plug-ins and scripts. Apart from libgimp and some basic core functionality, the whole thing has been completely rewritten. Sven ___ 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 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 numbers diverge. Pardon? Why would you ever have a problem explaining why version numbers of *different* packages *differ*? You don't even have a problem of explaining why version numbers for single files differ, even less so for different packages. That GTK+ is the GIMP ToolKit is not at all of any concern, after all, gimp is the minority of applications using it. GTK+ has evolved. IF you want to tie the version numbers, better make it a single package. You obviously didn't look at the code. You obviously haven't read my mail. Really, I don't see why you are so pissed off... I don't need to look at the code to see that there are no major changes, and certainly none of the changes planned for 2.0 for a long time. is easy to migrate plug-ins and scripts. Apart from libgimp and some basic core functionality, the whole thing has been completely rewritten. Well, if that would be all, then there would be no reason to upgrade for users at all, as nothing has changed for them. -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ 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: development questions
Hi, pcg( Marc)@goof(A.).(Lehmann )com 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 further than the 1.0 to 1.2 change ever went. Actually I am a bit surprised since I didn't expect any controversial discussion on this subject. The 2.0 versionnumber for the next stable release has been an open secret for at least three months now and so far noone had expressed an opinion against it. I am not pissed off, I just didn't expect such a resistance now. Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] useless plead for honest evrsion numbers :)
Hi, pcg( Marc)@goof(A.).(Lehmann )com 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 problem of explaining why version numbers for single files differ, even less so for different packages. That GTK+ is the GIMP ToolKit is not at all of any concern, after all, gimp is the minority of applications using it. GTK+ has evolved. IF you want to tie the version numbers, better make it a single package. That is a lame argument, really. GIMP and GTK+ used to be a single package, it was called GIMP. There is still a close relationship between the two. Both have come far and IMO both deserve a 2 as major version number. The switch from GTK+-1.2 to 2.0 was a lot smaller than what we have to offer for GIMP now. You obviously haven't read my mail. Really, I don't see why you are so pissed off... I don't need to look at the code to see that there are no major changes, and certainly none of the changes planned for 2.0 for a long time. Sorry, but I have to disagree. Almost of all the GUI changes that were planned for 2.0 are there. What is missing is a proper redesign of the inner core. That is IMO a much smaller change than what we have achieved sine GIMP-1.2. It will certainly be less visible to the user. Sven ___ 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 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 the 1.0 = 1.2 jump. You obviously didn't look at the code. Frankly, the libgimp API hasn't changed much but that's probably a good thing t'since it means that it is easy to migrate plug-ins and scripts. Apart from libgimp and some basic core functionality, the whole thing has been completely rewritten. Yesterday, I was in favor of 2.0, but now I am not sure anymore. Marc and the others are right to some extent: from a user's point of view, the changes in 1.3 compared to 1.2 are about as big as the changes from 1.0 to 1.2. From a developer's point of view, a lot of things have changed. Many parts of the code have been rewritten. But from a user's point of view, the visible differences are not that big. 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 different. - This reflects the amount of changes that occured in the code (from a developer's point of view). Reasons for calling it 1.4: - Many users expect 2.0 to include support for 16-bit channels, CMYK, better color calibration, layer trees/masks/styles, and several other features. This information has been published on various web sites and even printed in some magazines. - The original plan was that 1.4 would consist in a re-write and clean-up of the code without introducing too many user-visible changes. In fact, except for the timing and the part about the distribution of plug-ins, the original plan is still a good description of 1.3.x. - The user-visible changes in this version are comparable to the transition from 1.0 to 1.2 (user's point of view) -Raphaël ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: development questions
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 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 magazines etc. 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
Re: [Gimp-developer] useless plead for honest evrsion numbers :)
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 have a hard time to explain why even it's major release numbers diverge. I don't think we'd need to explain anything. GIMP 1.4 depends on GTK2. Period. In some way, it's separate software. It's not distributed with The GIMP, it just happens to be called The GIMP ToolKit for historical reasons. ;-) 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
Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: development questions
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 keywoards as gimp and 2.0.. you might be surprised how many people wait for the new 2.0 backend or other features. After all GTK+ is the GIMP toolkit. This is IMO a very good argument for calling the next GIMP release 2.0. Actually it's the only good argument that is out there (and I don't see any good one against it). Frankly, that makes no logical sense. Just because I wrote some linux-only software does not mean I should make my software version 2.4. A softwrae version should reflect the software's version, not the marketing behind it. You keep explaining tzhat this is a good argument, but people don't seem to be convinced. Why is it such a good argument? It's a very bad argument in most other cases, so why is it a good argument for the gimp? Especially, what's the logical connection between the version numbers of two independent projects? The same argument can be applied to any gtk+, especially gnome. I don't see the benefits, or the goodness, of having the same version number for all software packages. To the contrary, this will just confuse me, as vital information (is the version number the only thing that changed on many software packages) will be destroyed. that warrants to increase the major release number. If you looked at the code you would have noticed that every single file was touched. That's also not a good argument. interface has been completely rewritten. There is not much in the app directory that resembles the old 1.2 code. If that's not worth an update in major release, I really don't know what would warrant it. 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). I do believe that users will not be able to see any major changes. Again, don't get me wrong. I am not trying to diminish all the work that has gone into gimp-1.3, but I fail to see why a bigger version number will be of any practical help, as opposed to more confusion. It might be for egotistical reasons, after all, if I invested a lot of work into a release, I want to bump the version number up appropriately. But that's no service to the users of my module. Better use codenames, that works well with users. (I liked the road to 2.0 ;) -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ 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] useless plead for honest evrsion numbers :)
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] ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: development questions
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 magazines etc. Actually a few magazines already know that the next stable release is supposed to be 2.0 for some time already. Call it a cheap marketing trick, but we need to raise some public interest right now. A couple of computer magazines are planning articles about the upcoming GIMP release and the GIMP Developer Conference at the camp. I don't think we should be overly meek now. Give them something to write about, let's make it onto slashdot, get this thing going... Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] useless plead for honest evrsion numbers :)
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 already or 2.0 because it's worth a major number increase and because of GTK+-2.x. There doesn't seem to be any good argument for 1.6 or 1.8. Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] development questions
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 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 development path' didn't provide any of that information. so, you mean there is not going to be any rewrite-from-scratch? or that when there is it will be numbered eg 3.x? ___ 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: 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 development path' didn't provide any of that information. so, you mean there is not going to be any rewrite-from-scratch? or that when there is it will be numbered eg 3.x? I don't think we ever wanted to do a rewrite-from-scratch. What we did since GIMP-1.2 was a rewrite of the user interface and a major overhaul of the application core. The code is now in a state where it makes sense to think about changing the basics but keeping most of the infrastructure on top it intact. Whatever version number the next release would get can only be told when it is ready. We will probably make up a more detailed plan for the future at the developers conference this summer. This is not a closed event; whoever feels interested in GIMP development or simply wants to meet developers and other GIMP users is welcome to join us. Here are a few links to more information: http://www.gimp.org/gimpcon/ Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] version numbers
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. ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] python template for version options
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 thing but the preferred version number could be entered into it like this: configuration stuff here version=%(version_number)s like, even though i am using gimp from cvs, i still use it like it was gimp 1.0.4 and miss some of the features that appeared for me in 1.0.2 and also in the 1.1.24 eras that have disappeared since then. maybe i could make a template that would know to build a feature reincluder for whichever version i named it? anyone see this template system before? i use it with html. carol -- The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up. ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] Re: Setting Up Wilber
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 increased from 140 to 165. Okay, thanks. But does the total really matter? If we have more than a thousand visitors using NS4 in the last week, does it matter if this is a thousand out of 10,000, a million or a billion? It does put the figure into perspective. I won't be arguing for ignoring those however-many users stuck with Netscape 4 - but I do think when it comes down to making a/the tough decision it does matter if it's in the vicinity 50% of the users or more like 0.1%. We are not a commercial site counting the visitors to see how many of them get banner ads or anything like that; we are counting how many GIMP users can get help from the GIMP web site. See also Marc's message. Usually commercial sites will cater to bad browser for _longer_ that non-commercial sites, because otherwise their sales will suffer (the bosses think). In my experience non-commercial sites have been a lot quicker to adopt standards-compliant practises - sometimes alienating Netscape 4 users, sometimes not. Best regards, -- Vilken sanning, Måns, är sann? Adam Sjøgren [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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 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. 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? :-) i am sorry that this happened. having been so long on a 486, i knew this. i also knew that it was better to use hn's instead of p class=title and i let that slip in. at this point, once everything is fixed, gegl and gimp will be so far removed from the content contained here. when i became involved, i knew that i could handle getting the proper content there. as time went on, i became the technical person also, i guess. no one who understood how things worked was willing to work on it. i had to lie to someone to get them to set it up. and then endure the correction from above (see mention of php at the camp wiki and the guest lecturer on mmmaybe). i wasted a lot of time with team members that disagreed with everything i said, until i dropped a few names. when i ask that this condition cease, i got team members that agreed with everything that i said. so how do you make this stop? i take full responsibility for the brokenness. i try to move it, as the information there is better (people can try lynx or w3m) and it is accessible to many many people who really have stronger ideas and better opinions than me. instead i get mail. mail about how wrong it is. i read the Changelog maybe from now on instead? lots of time for mail. with everyone taking so much time with mail, how come i have to stop moving the site? after taking full responsibility? i will read the Changelog, you guys keep reading the mail. carol ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] Re: useless plead for honest evrsion numbers :)
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.. 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. I don't think we'd need to explain anything. GIMP 1.4 depends on GTK2. Period. In some way, it's separate software. It's not distributed with The GIMP, it just happens to be called The GIMP ToolKit for historical reasons. ;-) i was assured that as long as Owen Taylor was involved it would always be The GIMP Tool Kit. was i misinformed about this? carol ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] What's new in GIMP-1.3 so far
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 compressed version of the NEWS file as found in the 1.3 tree. So here's a list of (mostly user-visible) changes. I'm sure I still missed quite a few things... What's new in GIMP-1.3 == - Extended the concept of linked items to all kind of transformations - Rewritten and much improved text tool (not quite finished yet) - Rewritten and improved paths tool (not quite finished yet) - Modular display filters and color selectors - Popup selectors for brushes, gradients, palettes and the like - Improved session managment - Fullscreen mode for the image window - MNG saving - PSD saving - Allow to create channels from an image's color component - Added color pickers to levels tool for easier color correction - Much improved undo system that adapts to the memory requirements of the undo steps - Hooks for plug-in debugging - Converted the API reference to DocBook XML - New colorblindness display filter - Added SphereDesigner plug-in - Portability fixes for 64bit platforms - Handle large swap files (2GB) - Optional menubar in the image window - Added more widgets to libgimp (GimpColorScale, GimpPickButton, ...) - Added a color selector dock - Added new layer modes (Softlight, Grain Extract, Grain Merge) - Added Gimp-Python - Improved UI of color adjustment tools - Added GimpSelectionEditor, a view on the current selection - Cleaned up and improved most plug-ins - Support tile cache 4GB on machines with 64bit long integers - Added support for large files ( 2GB) - Temporary switch to the Move tool when Space is pressed - Added mnemonics all over the place - Adopted the Thumbnail Managing Standard - Added shortcuts to crop layer or image to selection boundary - Improved tool options and made them dockable - Cleanup of brush, gradient, pattern and palette PDB functions - Allow to choose interpolation for individual transformations - New layer mask initialization modes - Scanline conversion (Path to selection etc.) changed to use libart - Improved preferences dialog - Themeable user interface - Dockable windows - New tool icons - New RGB-Indexed quantizer - Added Color Erase paint mode - Added SF-DIRNAME script-fu parameter - Ported to GTK+-2.x - Rewrittten and improved almost all of the GUI - Cleaned up the core a lot. The app directory is now broken up into subdirectories that define subsystems with defined dependencies - Seperated GUI from core functionality in almost all places - The core object system does not depend on GTK+ any longer - Split up libgimp and libgimpui in a bunch of smaller utility libraries to be used by plug-ins and the core Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] What's new in GIMP-1.3 so far
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 because of time matters, so it's pretty much in the untuned state I landed it in. But it's okay. I really hope that I can get back to it at some point. --Adam -- Adam D. Moss . ,,^^ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.foxbox.org/ co:3 Responsible parents don't raise kids in West Virginia. ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] What's new in GIMP-1.3 so far
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, who invests so much effort into gimp, without ever wanting a thanks. It was also not my intent to undermine the efforts that went into 1.3. I *know* a lot has been done. My *opinion* is just that naming it 2.0 is not a good service, regardless of how much work was put into it. I am convinced that a version number like 1.4 or 1.8 or 1.8 or 1.10 or... should be equally fine to tell people just how much work and effort has been put into the release. The reason I was relatively upset is that the main argument is always everybody else has 2.0, and I simply think that is dishonest and not useful to people. It's not dishonest because sven et. al. were lazy, to the contrary. My deepest respects for the whole rewrite, cleaning up etc. of the source tree. It sure was a lot of work that wasn't honored accordingly. I can fully understand if sven gets upset now when he interprets my mails as you didn't do enough to earn a 2.0. If making it version 2.0 is the only way to honor the hard work, so be it, I don't oppose this. I just hope that there are better ways to show this, more fulfilling ways. Please, don't flame (as I almost started to do in my earlier mails), it's of no use and will only give sven the feeling that people don't acknowledge what he does. A disaster that would be. -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ 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] GIMP at the Chaos Communication Camp
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 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. -- branko collin [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP at the Chaos Communication Camp
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 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... Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] What's new in GIMP-1.3 so far
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 business about it when I tried to get some support for the conference this summer. I'm sorry but I need to sell this conference at the moment and everyone seems flat broke. We really could need some good marketing and instead you guys take this as an opportunity for flames? Please come back with arguments as soon as you have settled down. Sven, I think you're right to assume that major technical changes, even if they are invisible to the user, warrant major version numbers. I will go even so far as to say that technical changes are the only thing that should drive version number changes. However, I also agree with those who say that GIMP 2.0 is in the minds of the people as the one that will bring CMYK, GEGL and other such goodies. With smaller apps it wouldn't be so important. Who cares whether Audacity (a fine tool, BTW!) jumps to 1.2 or 2.0? But GIMP is a well known program, and a lot of users know the meaning of its version numbers. This is all IMHO. -- branko collin [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] What's new in GIMP-1.3 so far
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 or that gimp-2.0 will have all those new features people expect for 2.0? I'm sorry but I need to sell this conference at the moment and everyone seems flat broke. We really could need some good marketing and instead Who is we? A company? You are selling a conference? So the fact that you mentioned the number 2.0 to (maybe) two magazine people means that this version number must be used? Also, who is we? *I* certainly don't need any marketing... I am sorry, but I feel your arguments in favour of 2.0 get more and more confusing, and rather long-winded. Especially if one considers that magazines and websites already published that gimp-2.0 will have cmyk support etc.. and this doesn't bind us in any way, either. you guys take this as an opportunity for flames? Please calm down, I more than once told you that I am not flaming. You are working yourself up into something here, really. No flame was intended, just a discussion about the version number. For some reason you are getting mad at this discussion, not the arguments. Why is this so? Why are you asking for speaking up if you only go mad at people who do? You'd better not have posted anything if you don't want to hear any responses. [google search] impression that most the hits for gimp 2.0 are caused by gimp used on the same page as gtk+-2.0. What exactly do you want to prove by 116,000 hits on google? Stop putting words in my or other peoples mouth, please. I don't want to prove anything by 116,000 hits. I want to prove that the expection for gimp-2.0 having some major new features like cmyk etc. is there, and searches like gimp 2, gimp 2.0, gimp cmyk certainly are good indications that a number of people and websites know about the not-at-all secret plans of adding colourspace support and others for gimp-2.0. Also, if you really want comparison by numbers, than the number of people writing that gimp-2.0 will have cmyk is certainly larger than the number of magazine people you talked to. And this is no wonder, as this has been mentioned publicly a lot of times. See above. BTW: do I have qualified to have an option ? BTW: Yes, indeed you do. What exactly makes you think you don't? Your reaction, I guess. Asking for responses and then critizising people for responsing at all. Please don't take it personally. That's the last thing I or others want. I'd be happy with a disucssion about version numbers, and I laid downmy arguments, namely that there are no major features for a major version number, and the added opinion that we don't need new major numbers just because everything else has (becaus thta's just confusing people). Other people have added that there are great expectations for gimp-2.0, and I think that 1.6 or 1.8 or so would be a nice number telling people hey there, this was a hell LOT OF WORK!, without destroying all the plans mentioned over the years. I even think that not having added major new features, but cleaning up the codebase and adding lots-needed bits here and there, is a good thing, as it enables people to start implementing difficult new features such as using gegl without having to add dirty hacks everywhere. Oh shit, I got one wrong. But wait, I'll put Image templates in as a new feature that I forget to listen. Yes, and swapfiles 2GB as probably a bugfix, not a feature at all, just like 64 bit cleanlyness is a bugfix, and not a feature. Let's not quarrel around features. If you insist that there are major features qualifying 2.0, I do not really oppose. However, I *do* oppose marketing, but gtk+ has it and similar arguments. I simply think it's unneccssary. -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ 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] useless plead for honest evrsion numbers :)
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 different. IMHO, this is not a good reason for numbering it 2.0. By now, GTK+ stands independently of the GIMP; it's maintained by different people, the releases aren't synchronized, and indeed (even in 1.2) the GIMP has its own widget set layered on top of GTK+. Whatever the origins of the name, at present GTK+ is no more the GIMP toolkit than Gimp-Print is the Print plug-in for the GIMP. -- Robert Krawitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tall Clubs International -- http://www.tall.org/ or 1-888-IM-TALL-2 Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project lead for Gimp Print --http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net Linux doesn't dictate how I work, I dictate how Linux works. --Eric Crampton ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] anyone have problems with this?
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
Re: [Gimp-developer] version numbers
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 advantages of a. being the square root of 2, the number so many want b. The next version number will always be known.. And when GEGL comes along, this will be an exponential jump, so the numbers will begin at 2.7 (which will the version of GTK+ at the time) 2.71 ... 2.7182818 It's a cold, foggy grey miserable day...not much else to do :-) owen -- ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] version numbers
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 it stuck. And yes, maybe its useless version number bloat, but who cares? Gimp has been 1.x for so long now, and GEGL is a huge step in gimp's development. When you change this much in a product, you up the major version number. On 19-Jun-2003, 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 followed by 1.41 then 1.414 ... 1.4142136 ad infinitum This has the advantages of a. being the square root of 2, the number so many want b. The next version number will always be known.. And when GEGL comes along, this will be an exponential jump, so the numbers will begin at 2.7 (which will the version of GTK+ at the time) 2.71 ... 2.7182818 It's a cold, foggy grey miserable day...not much else to do :-) owen -- ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer -- Patrick Diablo-D3 McFarland || [EMAIL PROTECTED] Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music. -- Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, Inc, 1989 ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
