Re: [Gimp-developer] version numbers
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 followed by 1.41 then 1.414 ... 1.4142136 ad infinitum Important: Never round up that last digit! Or the next version will be considered an earlier version - e.g. this would break RPM version number checking (1.41421356 1.4142136). It's a cold, foggy grey miserable day...not much else to do :-) After all, we could drop that number and use the number of digits as the version. 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
[Gimp-developer] Re: What's new in GIMP-1.3 so far
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 keeping the next stable release as 1.4. Note that a 1.4 version does not devaluate of all the hard work that was put into the Gimp. By all means, a new secondary version in Gimp is always a big deal, and will be very appreciated. Best regards, Shlomi Fish -- Shlomi Fish[EMAIL PROTECTED] Home Page: http://t2.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/ An apple a day will keep a doctor away. Two apples a day will keep two doctors away. Falk Fish ___ 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 wrote: And please try a google search for gimp 2.0 as suggested. My quick looking reveals gimp 2.0 backend, 16 bit, cmyk, does qualify for pre press ... I did that since Marc suggested and I spent some time with the results. I didn't make up any scientific statistics but I got to the 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? I did a more specific search: http://www.google.com/search?q=gimp+2.0+-gtk+-GTK+GEGL+-gimp-developer+-gegl-developer I excluded pages mentioning GTK plus the developer lists. Still 160 hits, some on major sites. The main argument against naming it 2.0 is that 2.0 is already known as the all new, GEGL-based GIMP with colospace support etc.. I'm afraid, there would be lots of people asking where is CMYK support and where is GEGL? It is very hard to alter such widespread knowledge. It could get a real PITA. 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] What's new in GIMP-1.3 so far
Hans Breuer wrote: 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... I could comment on every single feature, but if you just reread your own list you should be able to see that there is nothing major beside the huge rewrite which IMHO only justifies the .0 number as in 'beware of totally new misbehaviour' :-) Here's the point I think we should be focussing on. The GIMP core has been re-written. This means that there have been lots of bugs introduced, and many old ones backed out. If we use a .4 minor version number (or any 1.x version number), we risk giving the impression that this is a stable point-release, a continuation of the 1.2 branch, with stable interfaces, stable internals and the rest. Since CVS has what amounts to a re-write of 1.2 (as opposed to the modularisation which was envisaged way back at GIMPCon 2000), we would need to be careful that we don't give the impression of stability with an untested program. The new .0 version number says that the program may be unstable, but that it is considered good to go for production work. That is, in my opinion, the case. snip That said, much like the earlier discussions over licencing issues, I find the whole issue a pointless waste of time. I do not think that the version number makes a great deal of difference, and I don't believe there will be a public outcry among the GIMP using public just because we use 2.0 without having operation pipes and CMYK. Personally I wouldn't be averse to calling the current CVS 2.0, and having a 2.2 pretty quickly afterwards (say around Christmas) as was done with GTK+ to say All known bugs introduced in the 2.0 release are fixed. The main point, of course, is that version numbering is irrelevant to content, and arguing about it isn't getting us any closer to a stable release, or a usable GeGL. Can we agree that the version number isn't that important, call it something, and get on with writing software? By the way, what's the current story with PuPUS? Is it abandoned, or will it get released at some stage post-1.3+? Cheers, Dave. -- David Neary, Lyon, France E-Mail: [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
Hi, pcg( Marc)@goof(A.).(Lehmann )com writes: 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... Marc, you may not need any marketing but I have been trying to raise funding for gimpcon since february. I do believe that we, the GIMP project, could need some more publicity. Please don't overrate the stuff I said about magazines. All I said was that we are considering to call it 2.0. That's it. I am not running around spreading news that have not even been announced on the mailing list. However the fact that we think about going for a 2.0 has been around for so long that it certainly leaked to quite a few people already. 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. I said this in response to a mail from Hans who was IMO the only one who wrote a flamish mail on this subject so far. 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. Sure, I don't wonder, after all that's what we told them 3 years ago. Three years are a long time and noone will be surprised if we changed our plans by now. It would certainly raise some interest (which is good) but I don't see any point in holding up to what we said three years ago only for the reason that we said it back then. 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. Marc, please check who is being quoted and answered. Hans asked this. 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). Cool, let's get on with a discussion then. IMO the changes are major and I am pretty sure that the user-visible changes for a GEGL-based GIMP will be smaller than the changes we introduced since 1.3. My second argument is that I believe that GTK+, the GIMP toolkit, being at version 2.x and GIMP being at version 1.x is very confusing to people. Whenever a new GIMP 1.3 release is announced, people ask when we will finally start to port it to 2.0. There aren't really so many people out there that know about the plans for 2.0 we made three years ago. Don't let google fool you; from the discussions I followed lately, I came to the impression that people expect a GIMP 2.0 release. Yes, and swapfiles 2GB as probably a bugfix, not a feature at all. It was too much of a major change to be done in the stable 1.2 tree, so I think it can be called a new feature. But you are right, we don't need to quarrel about details of the feature list I posted. 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
Hi, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tino Schwarze) writes: I did a more specific search: http://www.google.com/search?q=gimp+2.0+-gtk+-GTK+GEGL+-gimp-developer+-gegl-developer I excluded pages mentioning GTK plus the developer lists. Still 160 hits, some on major sites. The main argument against naming it 2.0 is that 2.0 is already known as the all new, GEGL-based GIMP with colospace support etc.. You can get 160 hits on google for whatever statement you would like to make. It is a stupid attempt to try to prove anything with a search engine that has billions of pages archived. I'm afraid, there would be lots of people asking where is CMYK support and where is GEGL? It is very hard to alter such widespread knowledge. It could get a real PITA. As I said in another mail already, I believe that it will be a major PITA to explain why it GIMP uses GTK+-2.x and still is not called 2.0. I could surely come up with a google search to proove this but this is getting ridiculous. Anyone who followed the discussions on various sites that announced GIMP-1.3 releases lately, will have noticed that people keep asking for a GIMP port to GTK+-2.x. Going for GIMP 2.0 will IMO be less confusing than sticking to 1.4 just because we stated so 3 years ago. Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] A new filter idea..
Is this the right forum to discuss new filter ideas? If so, I have one i'd like to share. Cheers, Bowie ___ 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
Hi, David Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Personally I wouldn't be averse to calling the current CVS 2.0, and having a 2.2 pretty quickly afterwards (say around Christmas) as was done with GTK+ to say All known bugs introduced in the 2.0 release are fixed. I am glad you said that since that's what I had in mind as well. I just didn't want to go into details about the time after the release since I hope that we can get this sorted out at GimpCon. The main point, of course, is that version numbering is irrelevant to content, and arguing about it isn't getting us any closer to a stable release, or a usable GeGL. Can we agree that the version number isn't that important, call it something, and get on with writing software? Yes, please. But we probably need to get to a point here. GIMP-something.0 sounds pretty weird for a stable release... 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
Hi, pcg( Marc)@goof(A.).(Lehmann )com writes: Ok, here's _my_ deal: *If* you say that not calling it 2.0 would cause problems in fundraising, then you simply win... While my concerns were, for me, important enough to mention them (and argue about them), and while the gtk+ has 2 etc.. style of arguments were not convincing, this one is. We already have problems in fundraising, I can not tell you if the 2.0 would solve them but I had that plan that involved announcing the 2.0 release number plan. If we decide that we stick to 1.4, I'll have to make up a new one. I still disagree on that, people are eagerly waiting for 2.0 for the very features it should have. Unfortunately. Are they? I don't really know what people are expecting from GEGL integration but it will certainly not be another GIMP once this has happened. When GEGL is used, users will probably not notice that the crappy code that provides the basis for pixel manipulations in the current GIMP has been replaced. We should go for GEGL soon after the next release but it will not be a substantial change from a GIMP users point of view. Only if we then add CMYK as a new colorspace and add proper color management functionality, really new features will be available. These enhancements are not provided by GEGL, GEGL only provides a framework that allows to do such changes in a nice and clean way. From all the people that addressed me and asked for CMYK support, only one so far was able to explain to me what benefits one can get from working in CMYK. All others would have made things worse since they would have attempted to do color separation w/o any knowledge of the inks and paper used to print the result. To get to a point here, CMYK support is IMO a bit overrated. We surely want to add it but we need to do it proper. You also mentioned integration with FilmGIMP or CinePaint. Well, it seems there is little interest from the CinePaint people, but if you look at the current state of GAP for GIMP-1.3, it seems that we can already provide quite a few of the features that film people keep asking for. That said, I don't think I can ensure you that we need 2.0 for the conference but I am still convinced that the amount of added features is worth it. This release will definitely mark a new era of GIMP. When, if not now, do you want to increase the major version number? Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] A new filter idea..
Hi, Bowie J. Poag [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Is this the right forum to discuss new filter ideas? If so, I have one i'd like to share. Sure, go ahead and tell us what you have in mind. Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] blur filter
Hi, M.C. Joel E. Rodriguez [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Have an image with blured added noise (actually, donk know the noise distribution) and would like to ``clean it''. does such a blur filter exists?, can somebody give me some directions? You might have a better chance to get an answer if you tried asking on the gimp-user mailing-list. 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: Yes, please. But we probably need to get to a point here. GIMP-something.0 sounds pretty weird for a stable release... I say it's time for a show of hands. My vote is for 2.0, because there are likely to be lots of new bugs and 1.4 makes it sould like a really stable release. Who's going to keep count? Cheers, Dave. -- David Neary, Lyon, France E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] A new filter idea..
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 02:05:25AM -0700, Bowie J. Poag [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is this the right forum to discuss new filter ideas? If so, I have one i'd like to share. Sure it is, even more so if you plan to implement it, hint, hint :) -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ 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] Re: A new filter idea..
Bowie, welcome. I am sure that any idea you have for a filter will be more than welcome here. :) carol On 2003-06-19 at 0205.25 -0700, Bowie J. Poag typed this: Is this the right forum to discuss new filter ideas? If so, I have one i'd like to share. Cheers, Bowie ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer -- 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
Re: [Gimp-developer] What's new in GIMP-1.3 so far
David Neary wrote: By the way, what's the current story with PuPUS? Is it abandoned, or will it get released at some stage post-1.3+? You can look back through the archives for my notes on pupus' state. In summary I had to kill it because of lack of time. An early version was up and running, but today I doubt that even a quite complete implementation would be doing much more interesting stuff than a crossbred gstreamer+gegl (except for some of the interactive-image-processing-specific scheduling niceties, I think). --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] A new filter idea..
On Thursday 19 June 2003 06:05, Bowie J. Poag wrote: Is this the right forum to discuss new filter ideas? If so, I have one i'd like to share. Maybe... But might be gimp-user, or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Just send the idea at once. :-) Cheers, Bowie ___ ___ 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 Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 12:14:30PM +0200, David Neary wrote: Yes, please. But we probably need to get to a point here. GIMP-something.0 sounds pretty weird for a stable release... I say it's time for a show of hands. My vote is for 2.0, because there are likely to be lots of new bugs and 1.4 makes it sould like a really stable release. Alright, this is a real argument for 2.0. It just sounds less stable than 1.4... Taking the fundraising argument into account, I'm indecisive. Therefore, I abstain from voting (not that I would claim a vote). 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
[Gimp-developer] Re: What's new in GIMP-1.3 so far
On 19 Jun 2003, at 12:56, Sven Neumann wrote: pcg( Marc)@goof(A.).(Lehmann )com writes: Ok, here's _my_ deal: *If* you say that not calling it 2.0 would cause problems in fundraising, then you simply win... While my concerns were, for me, important enough to mention them (and argue about them), and while the gtk+ has 2 etc.. style of arguments were not convincing, this one is. We already have problems in fundraising, I can not tell you if the 2.0 would solve them but I had that plan that involved announcing the 2.0 release number plan. If we decide that we stick to 1.4, I'll have to make up a new one. Can we know what that plan is? Perhaps we can help. I benefitted a lot from the feedback I got on my GIMP for Windows 1.2.3 press release. I still disagree on that, people are eagerly waiting for 2.0 for the very features it should have. Unfortunately. Are they? I don't really know what people are expecting from GEGL integration but it will certainly not be another GIMP once this has happened. When GEGL is used, users will probably not notice that the crappy code that provides the basis for pixel manipulations in the current GIMP has been replaced. We should go for GEGL soon after the next release but it will not be a substantial change from a GIMP users point of view. Only if we then add CMYK as a new colorspace and add proper color management functionality, really new features will be available. These enhancements are not provided by GEGL, GEGL only provides a framework that allows to do such changes in a nice and clean way. From all the people that addressed me and asked for CMYK support, only one so far was able to explain to me what benefits one can get from working in CMYK. All others would have made things worse since they would have attempted to do color separation w/o any knowledge of the inks and paper used to print the result. To get to a point here, CMYK support is IMO a bit overrated. We surely want to add it but we need to do it proper. You also mentioned integration with FilmGIMP or CinePaint. Well, it seems there is little interest from the CinePaint people, but if you look at the current state of GAP for GIMP-1.3, it seems that we can already provide quite a few of the features that film people keep asking for. As to the latter, I don't think so, or there wouldn't be a Film GIMP. Cinepaint exists, because it fulfils a clear need. Yes, there is a difference between what people need and what they think they need. An example would be resolution: a completely useless measurement of scale, yet all the people in the print graphics business swear by it. I won't tell you how often art directors have asked me what the resolution should be for the web site designs they are making. I always try to educate them, tell them that only the pixels count, but it would probably be much easier if I told them 74 dpi or some such number. Similarly, working in CMYK is not a technical necessity: it's a market space demand (although I personally would not mind having blackness as separate channel, but then preferably in a RGBK format). So you have to ask yourself: who am I selling to? Graphics artists? Geeks? Buyers for large firms? Reporters? The Slashdot crowd? Governments? They all have different needs, and these needs may not be fulfilled by a pretty version number, or by features, or by technical prowess and progress. If you're trying to sell GIMP progress by organising a meaningful GIMPcon, perhaps asking for money on Slashdot would be more useful than talking to one or two journalists. I don't know. What are your expectations? Does your experience tell you they will come true? -- branko collin [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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, Christopher W. Curtis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Something of a clincher for me is: has the file format changed? If I save an XCF under 1.4 and I can still open it under version 1.2, then it seems more like a point release. This doesn't add much to the discussion but I felt I could not let this stand uncommented. Yes, you can create XCF files with 1.3 that cannnot be read by GIMP-1.2. This is nothing to be proud of but there are new features in GIMP-1.3 (namely new layer modes) that 1.2 does not support and unfortunately this means that the file format is not 100% backwards compatible. Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] IANAL, LZW
IANAL, but IIRC, today is the day the absurd (and perhaps illegally gained) LZW patent claim of Unisys runs out in the USA. Merkins can use GIF now. -- branko collin [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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, Robert L Krawitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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+. Huh? Well, of course we have build widgets on top of the toolkit we use. What are you trying to prove here? I fail to see your point. 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. I don't agree. I do think that GIMP and GTK+ are in fact still more tightly coupled than you receive it. GIMP developers are constantly contributing to GTK+ and they do take part in decisions made for GTK+. At the same time GTK+ developers are giving the GIMP developers a hand when it comes to improving and debugging The GIMP. The two projects are not as diverged as perhaps gimp-print and gimp. 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 Thu, 2003-06-19 at 12:14, David Neary wrote: Sven Neumann wrote: Yes, please. But we probably need to get to a point here. GIMP-something.0 sounds pretty weird for a stable release... I say it's time for a show of hands. My vote is for 2.0, because there are likely to be lots of new bugs and 1.4 makes it sould like a really stable release. I couldn't have said it any better. A new road map (or release plan) will have to be written no matter if we call the next release 1.4 or 2.0 - and changing a three year old release plan is something that most people involved with software will understand. I say we go for 2.0 - and, as mentioned elsewhere on this list, plan for a quick 2.2 bug-fix release later this year. Sincerely, ./Brix -- Henrik Brix Andersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] IANAL, LZW
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 02:16:23PM +0200, Branko Collin wrote: IANAL, but IIRC, today is the day the absurd (and perhaps illegally gained) LZW patent claim of Unisys runs out in the USA. Merkins can use GIF now. Please wait until 06/2004. There are still patents in Europe and Japan until then. 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] IANAL, LZW
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Tino Schwarze wrote: Please wait until 06/2004. There are still patents in Europe and Japan until then. And here I thought software, ideas, and maths weren't patentable in Europe. Japan I don't know about, but I recall the US lobbying for such things being patentable there. ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] IANAL, LZW
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 03:45:30PM +0200, Marco Wessel wrote: Please wait until 06/2004. There are still patents in Europe and Japan until then. And here I thought software, ideas, and maths weren't patentable in Europe. That's what I thought too, but my source ( http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/atr-11.06.03-001/ - German only.) says that there _might_ be problems with GIF pictures (I cant translate the exact term IANAL either). So, I think there's no problem in leaving everything in it's current state. 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
[Gimp-developer] Re: What's new in GIMP-1.3 so far
On 2003-06-19 at 1504.01 +0200, Henrik Brix Andersen typed this: On Thu, 2003-06-19 at 12:14, David Neary wrote: Sven Neumann wrote: Yes, please. But we probably need to get to a point here. GIMP-something.0 sounds pretty weird for a stable release... I say it's time for a show of hands. My vote is for 2.0, because there are likely to be lots of new bugs and 1.4 makes it sould like a really stable release. I couldn't have said it any better. A new road map (or release plan) will have to be written no matter if we call the next release 1.4 or 2.0 - and changing a three year old release plan is something that most people involved with software will understand. I say we go for 2.0 - and, as mentioned elsewhere on this list, plan for a quick 2.2 bug-fix release later this year. is this you volunteering to fix the wiki? http://wiki.gimp.org/gimp/ carol ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] David Neary mail problems
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 04:17:52PM +0200, David Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just FYI, I get relay prohibited to [EMAIL PROTECTED] when replying to you. -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ 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] Menus in image window
A few people I have talked to expressed a wish to have the menus on to of image windows on by default. It is certainly a much more intuitive way to get at the context menus than the right mouse button, and newer gimp users seem to find it very helpful. Thus, I would like to propose having them on by default, and turnoffable by expert users. There is even an argument for having them always-on, and turning off that option. The option is always available not to use them, after all :) Consider this a request for comments. It's a tiny thing - I just want to see if there are any objections. Cheers, Dave. -- David Neary, Lyon, France E-Mail: [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 Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 12:56:03PM +0200, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I still disagree on that, people are eagerly waiting for 2.0 for the very features it should have. Unfortunately. Are they? I do. Others on this list do. It's up to you to make your opinion on that. I don't really know what people are expecting from GEGL CMYK, floating-point, programmable layer modes, dynamical effects, layer trees... happened. When GEGL is used, users will probably not notice that the crappy code that provides the basis for pixel manipulations in the This from the person who says the gtk+2 rewrite is the major feature people are expecting. Woaw. From all the people that addressed me and asked for CMYK support, only one so far was able to explain to me what benefits one can get from working in CMYK. All others would have made things worse since they Well, it's not just CMYK of course. I am also of the opinion (that I mentioend quite a lot of times), that working in CMYK is not at all the problem, but interoperability is the key problem. postscript paths (For clipping), and cmyk _bit_ format in files (because many programs intrepret rgb as CMY or worse). You also mentioned integration with FilmGIMP or CinePaint. Never did I use these words! I believe I didn't even quote them. ;) Who is you, in this case, again? That said, I don't think I can ensure you that we need 2.0 for the conference but I am still convinced that the amount of added features is worth it. *sigh*, I am confused. Well, I offer you to decide wether 2.0 is worth it from the fund-raising standpoint, and still state my opinion that 2.0 is a disservice to gimp users, and no service to anybody except maybe a ego push because so much work went into it. This release will definitely mark a new era of GIMP. Well, it's exactly as was planned for 1.4 before.. and I really fail to see the new era. My honest aplogies, but that's how I see it. We can rest it here if you want, and agree to disagree. If you agree, I'll be quiet, since I then said all that was to say from my side. When, if not now, do you want to increase the major version number? When there is a major change (e.g. gegl, cmyk). Using another toolkit is not a major change at all to me. Using the same internal representation for images, having the same features, simply doesn't warrant the new major number. I mean, all the concepts in gimp-1.3 are the same as in 1.2, no user visible major changes (yes, lots of small user visible improvements, but none of them qualify as major change). I simply don't think that 100 small improvememnts are one major improvement. In addition, arguments like but others have bumped their version number sound so extrenely fishy and dishonest to me that if such arguments are brought forward as the main and principle arguments to bump the version, I think there is ample reason to question them. The others do it is never ever a sound or reasonable argument to me. I hope the latter paragraph explains why I am opposed so much. It simply sounds fishy to me. Yet again, I let you decide wether it's important enough for the fundraising issue. *That* is an ugly and difficult to digest argument, but it concinves 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: What's new in GIMP-1.3 so far
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 02:03:50PM +0200, Branko Collin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So you have to ask yourself: who am I selling to? Graphics artists? (off-topic philosophical rant, not meant as an answer to you!) Personally, I didn't write gimp-perl (the only major contribution of mine to gimp) to sell it to anybody. I wrote it to fulfill a need. My need. This need can either be practical (as was in this case), or philosophical (I wrote a zipcracker once simply because I couldn't find a fere one), or being asked by people (I can do it, and so many people want it). Another way to describe that as the need for personal pleasure or masturbation or whatever you want to call it. Some people might want to sell. I don't. And everybody who tells me marc, you have to sell it to the people will get my sincerest flame, since I write it, you either take it, or leave it. You can comment, or help, or criticise. But if somebody tells me that you have to xxx I cna get rather angry, as all this you want to sell just presumes what I want or even tries to order me around. I know not everybody thinks that way. Alan Cox probably thinks similarly, Linus doesn't. There are all sorts of people. And not all of them feel that selling something they wrote is a must, or a need, or even useful. -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ 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] What's new in GIMP-1.3 so far
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 12:14:30PM +0200, David Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I say it's time for a show of hands. My vote is for 2.0, because My vote is for 1.x, or 2.0, if sven decides it on the grounds that we need it for marketing. The other arguments simply don't overweight the confusion I anticipate. How *do* you count? ;= And, actually, I think voting is not useful... we'll have to convince the people with the power (which includes Sven) to do it. Whoever does the release decides. Anarchy. I like it. there are likely to be lots of new bugs and 1.4 makes it sould like a really stable release. Just like 1.0 and 1.2, eh? really stable releases, eh? or kernel-2.4, or.. I am sorry, but there are no stable and unstable branches. 1.2 or 1.4 or 2.0 have nothing to do with stability, but all with branching. You expect stability after lots of testing from users, who will not test cvs snapshots. That is, you create a 1.4.x or 2.0.x branch. This is how it handled about anywhere else, including older gimp versions. changing this wlel-established way if handling releases is going to give much more confusion. Basically, why don't we just use revision numbers from cvs, or a simple counter... really, the current trend makes version numbers less and less informative, so why keep them at all? -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ 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] What's new in GIMP-1.3 so far
Hi, pcg( Marc)@goof(A.).(Lehmann )com writes: When, if not now, do you want to increase the major version number? When there is a major change (e.g. gegl, cmyk). Using another toolkit is not a major change at all to me. Using the same internal representation for images, having the same features, simply doesn't warrant the new major number. OK, so replacing the approx. 8,000 lines of code in the base directory with GEGL would be considered a major feature. The fact that the other 230,000 lines of code that make up the application have been substantially rewritten counts as a minor improvement only? Sorry, I cannot follow you on this argumentation. Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Menus in image window
David Neary wrote: Thus, I would like to propose having them on by default, and turnoffable by expert users. Consider this a request for comments. It's a tiny thing - I just want to see if there are any objections. To see just how tiny, there's a patch attached :) Cheers, Dave. -- David Neary, Lyon, France E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Index: gimpdisplayconfig.c === RCS file: /cvs/gnome/gimp/app/config/gimpdisplayconfig.c,v retrieving revision 1.18 diff -u -r1.18 gimpdisplayconfig.c --- gimpdisplayconfig.c 1 Apr 2003 11:04:40 - 1.18 +++ gimpdisplayconfig.c 19 Jun 2003 15:11:45 - @@ -181,7 +181,7 @@ 0); GIMP_CONFIG_INSTALL_PROP_BOOLEAN (object_class, PROP_SHOW_MENUBAR, show-menubar, SHOW_MENUBAR_BLURB, -FALSE, +TRUE, 0); GIMP_CONFIG_INSTALL_PROP_BOOLEAN (object_class, PROP_SHOW_RULERS, show-rulers, SHOW_RULERS_BLURB, ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Menus in image window
Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit David Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] There is even an argument for having them always-on, and turning off that option. The option is always available not to use them, after all :) That would be really bad. When doing graphics work (and every other kind of computing, IMHO), screen real estate is a precious resource, in particular *vertical* real estate, as that is the direction in which most monitors are smallest. My monitor can show me 1024 rows of pixels at a time; I'd deeply resent a program that insisted on wasting any of them on a menu bar. Fair enough. As an option it is, then. Any opposition to having the option on by default? Cheers, Dave. -- David Neary, Lyon, France E-Mail: [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
* Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030619 17:18]: Hi, pcg( Marc)@goof(A.).(Lehmann )com writes: When, if not now, do you want to increase the major version number? When there is a major change (e.g. gegl, cmyk). Using another toolkit is not a major change at all to me. Using the same internal representation for images, having the same features, simply doesn't warrant the new major number. OK, so replacing the approx. 8,000 lines of code in the base directory with GEGL would be considered a major feature. The fact that the other 230,000 lines of code that make up the application have been substantially rewritten counts as a minor improvement only? Sorry, I cannot follow you on this argumentation. The only valid argument for not bumping the major version is the fact that it earlier has been announced that it will happen after some named features and technologies have been integrated. Whether these technologies represent a big change or not is irrelevant, in an continusly evolving application like Gimp quantum leaps of functionality is unlikely. When GEGL is initially integrated with Gimp no additional features will probably be seen by the user, thus no quantum leap,. after that (I hope), more features og Gimp will take advantage of the approach GEGL takes to image processing, but again no quantum leaps,. is this an /pippin -- .^. /V\Øyvind Kolås, Gjøvik University College, Norway /(_)\ [EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED] ^ ^ ___ 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
My point in this situation is that, given that version number doesn´t matter all that much, why can´t we just be honest with ourselves and call it 1.4? Look, nobody cares about version numbers anymore. Let´s take the Linux kernel as an example: version 2.2 got a lot more of media attention than 2.0. Sven, if you want to raise funds for the GIMPCon, why don´t you tell your magazine friends that GIMPCon will be the place for the exclusive world premiere of the new stable version of the GIMP? Then you, or anybody else, can plan and write a cool lecture for the presentation. And after it, it can be made available for download worldwide or something like that. You can also write a long article for them about the Convention. They usually pay for that. There are a lot of ways to make money without compromising the integrity of a project. A new road map (or release plan) will have to be written no matter if we call the next release 1.4 or 2.0 - and changing a three year old release plan is something that most people involved with software will understand. I say we go for 2.0 - and, as mentioned elsewhere on this list, plan for a quick 2.2 bug-fix release later this year. I think this is wrong in terms of marketing strategy. Version 2.0 must be reserved for a especially stable and groundbreaking realease. If the long awaited GIMP 2.0 is inmediatelly followed by a bugfix, what would you think of the developers? I can tell you what I´d think: That they were only worried about the millenarism of the number and that they probably wanted to make The GIMP look mature at the eyes of non-expert users. That´s what I would say. And reading what some of you think about the issue, I guess I would be right. In Spain we have a saying that suits this situation: el buen paño en el arca se vende. It means that the perfect marketing strategy is a good and reliable product. José Manuel García-Patos Madrid ___ 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 Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 05:09:57PM +0200, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK, so replacing the approx. 8,000 lines of code in the base directory with GEGL would be considered a major feature. If we get all the other stuff we said would be in 2.0, yes. The fact that the other 230,000 lines of code that make up the application have been substantially rewritten counts as a minor improvement only? Well, from a user perspective, the improvement from using gtk2 over gtk1 is very nearly nil Even for me, the switch from gtk2 to gtk1 in itself is not at all an important new feature or improvement. -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ 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] What's new in GIMP-1.3 so far
Hi, pcg( Marc)@goof(A.).(Lehmann )com writes: Well, from a user perspective, the improvement from using gtk2 over gtk1 is very nearly nil Even for me, the switch from gtk2 to gtk1 in itself is not at all an important new feature or improvement. I wonder why you keep talking about the port to GTK2. I surely did not mention this as a new feature. Porting to GTK2 took a couple of days merely, it would surely not warrant a major version number increase. The fact that GIMP-1.3 looks and feels a lot like 1.2 is of course intentional. I don't think users would like to see dramatic changes in the look and feel. Users expect improvements but they want to be able to perform the same task the way they did with the old version. That's what they get from 1.3. Only after a while will the user learn all the nifty new things she could not have done with 1.2. I don't think that's unusual for such a large application. Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] New thread on GIMP 1.3+
Hi all, At this stage, everyone has had their say on the version number thing. Personally I'm surprised there is so much fuss. But at this stage we all know where we all stand. I'm starting a new thread to try to accomplish 2 things. 1) The death of all the other next version threads (I think there are either 2 or 3), and 2) A quick poll of the people concerned in all those threads. I want to avoid the kind of permanent talking in circles that is inevitable in this kind of discussion. As Marc Lehmann has said, a decision will be made at some stage, and that decision will have to be made by a small number of people. The point, I believe, of having brought this to the list was to reach some kind of consensus, and to allow people to disagree with the version bump and give reasons for that disagreement. That has happened, all the reasons for against are out in the open, and now we need a decision. To facilitate that, could the people who wish to express an opinion on the version numbering reply to this thread (once each) with the version number they would like to see on the next stable release of the GIMP. The rest of this mail can be snipped. I'll get the ball rolling: 2.0 Dave. -- David Neary, Lyon, France E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] New thread on GIMP 1.3+
On Thu, 2003-06-19 at 21:44, David Neary wrote: To facilitate that, could the people who wish to express an opinion on the version numbering reply to this thread (once each) with the version number they would like to see on the next stable release of the GIMP. The rest of this mail can be snipped. I'll get the ball rolling: 2.0 I vote for 2.0 as well. ./Brix -- Henrik Brix Andersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] New thread on GIMP 1.3+
David Neary wrote: I'll get the ball rolling: 2.0 8.0 (PeerMarketParityTM... sorry for the spam) -- 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
[Gimp-developer] New Filter Idea: Disease
Hi gang, I've gotta get to class in a few minutes, but, here's something to look at: http://www.ibiblio.org/propaganda/Gimp-DiseaseFilter.gif Disclaimer: I don't know if this sort of thing already exists in Gimp. If it does, do let me know. It would save me alot of coding effort. :) Basically, Disease can be thought of as a hex map where three factors (radial dispersion, cell resistance and viability) determine pixel behavior. If apply this idea to the canvas, you effectively have the ability to dictate the texture of the paper, so to speak.. Or, if used as a mask, it can express varying degrees of color permiability in an image beneath it. This filter uses disease transmission as a model--Cell A is infected with paint, and A's neighboring cells similarly become infected based on user-specified values of radial dispersion, cell resistance, and viability for each color channel. For example, if we consider the whole color permiability angle where we're toying with the canvas---if we changed the radial dispersion in the diagram to something like (sin(1/x^2)) and made x equal to (R+(G*0.8)), this would cause a few waves of varying yellow-brown permiability originating from point A...Coffee stains, basically. More later, when I have the time. :( Cheers, Bowie ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] New thread on GIMP 1.3+
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 09:44:01PM +0200, David Neary wrote: I'll get the ball rolling: 2.0 1.4. :-) /* Steinar */ -- Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/ ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] New thread on GIMP 1.3+
My vote is for 1.4. Otherwise, the Slashdot headline we will get is GIMP 2.0 Fails to Deliver Promised Features Rockwalrus ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] Re: Blur filter
Actually I would like to colaborate with a new filter also (as Bowie), but mine idea is in the direction of: ``Inverse Image Filtering with Conjugate Gradient'' http://people.cornell.edu/pages/zz25/imgcg/ it is a new idea under Gimp? Downloading the latest 1.x versi'on will look into the source, but any coments are wellcome appreciated regards Joel ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] New thread on GIMP 1.3+
On Thu, 2003-06-19 at 21:44, David Neary wrote:
I'll get the ball rolling: 2.0
1.4. From the marketing perspective 2.0 would do more harm than good
because of the mentioned expected bad press ('none of the promised
features').
--
Jakub Steiner [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 Thu, 19 Jun 2003 10:03:55 +0200 David Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since CVS has what amounts to a re-write of 1.2 (as opposed to the modularisation which was envisaged way back at GIMPCon 2000), we would need to be careful that we don't give the impression of stability with an untested program. The new .0 version number says that the program may be unstable, but that it is considered good to go for production work. That is, in my opinion, the case. What ? You mean that Gimp 2.0 won't give the user what you have written and more of that won't be stable ? It's not serious... This will be very confusing for people who explain for years and years that gimp 2.0 will be ... what you have written, and for other GimpPeople. Who will trust GimpPeople now ? You should really considerer that the Gimp Community will loose some credibility. Furthermore this probably will give lot of arguments to Gimp detractors, why they could not say now that Gimp2 was only born to make definitvly obsolete the_gimp104_fork_that_nobody_here_know_it_exists and no other good reasons ? Sorry for my english, @+ Raymond ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] [Fwd: Gimp features]
I got this directed at me so I'm bouncing it to this list (don't ask me for an interpretation, I only work here). --Adam ---BeginMessage--- Hello Adam. I should propose next feature for gimp: Scale for brush. - I have scale brush - zoom in and zoom out.(bird,range,and all other brushes).Too I have propose brush rotation,imho this have sense - may be light in use,when draw image,next rotate hem(too not always this possible - drawing with brush rotate may have uniqe effect!)May be too have sense zoom shablones for brushes?Too very needing more editable (size(zoom),edit in gimp window)menu for brushes and brush shablones. Weeth esteem Alexander Yermakov. ---End Message--- ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
