Re: [Gimp-developer] tentative GIMP 2.0 release plans

[Joao S. O. Bueno]

On Friday 18 July 2003 16:59, Sven Neumann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to inform you about our plans for the GIMP 2.0 release.
(...)
>
> Originally we wanted to get GIMP 2.0 out at GimpCon. Since that is
> actually in three weeks, we will definitely not make it but I am
> still optimistic that we will manage to feature-freeze at the Camp
> and do something that we can call a 2.0 prerelease. Perhaps we will
> need to declare one or two missing features as bugs but basically
> the release made at GimpCon should have everything that GIMP 2.0
> will have.

Sven,

I am here working, though slowly, on the programable layer mode, 
which I proposed when I first joined the list.
It's not such a  small change, since adding layer modes breaks the 
cross-reading of .xcf files.

So what I need to know now is:
- If I deliver a partially working patch by next week, could it be 
included before the feature freeze?
- Else, I think the proper moment to bring it up would be when the 
new GIMP file save format, which is on topic nowadays, would be 
implemented. Could that be 2.2 ?

Or do we have a chance of having this new file format in 2.0? 
If yes, I think it could be done in a way that new layer formats could 
be made not to break badly the backwards compatibility.


Thanks. 

JS
-><-

___
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Gradient dithering

[Patrick McFarland]

On 19-Jul-2003, Sven Neumann wrote:
> We might do another 1.2 release but I doubt that this will happen and
> it would surely be just be a bug-fix release with no new feature
> whatsoever. GIMP-1.3 is close to being released as 2.0 and support for
> 1.2 will be dropped then.

Releasing the stable from 1.3 is a bad idea, and I think everyone knows it.
I wrote an email a few minutes before this one, and I suggest you read it.

1.3 should become 1.4. It doesnt use gegl, and it isnt 2.0 material. Releasing
1.3 as 2.0 is possibly the worse thing any of you could ever do. You know those
slashdot trolls who keep saying apple and bsd are dead? They'll say gimp is
dead, and I will believe them.

-- 
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

Re: [Gimp-developer] tentative GIMP 2.0 release plans

[Patrick McFarland]

On 18-Jul-2003, Christopher Curtis wrote:
> The 1.9.x "Building GIMP 2.0" branch
> o GEGL -- Gimp 'E' Graphical Library
> o GCim -- The convergence integrated media object and utility library.

I am one of these active users that have been lead to believe that gimp 2.0
will use GEGL. So, all the developers out that think 2.0 is yet another small 
gimp release, or something else (imho) stupid, can just go away or something.

Im actually kind of sick of listening all of you bicker back and forth.
>From my outsider point of view, 2.0 is set in stone, and what it will include
will be set in stone. Also, from my outsider pov, stuff like gegl is a very
cool idea. Anything that allows gimp to be more powerful is always a good
thing. I also see gegl as a major feature, something that would produce a 2.0.

However, the more you all bicker, the less work is actually getting done.
I hate to have to be the one saying this, but you should just be coding,
because in the end, whoever codes gimp 2.0 is the one who gets to say what
happens, or _nothing happens at all._

Gegl is basically the end all be all gimp graphics rendering engine. It will
be able to do what no popular graphics manipulation program has done before.
(I think.) 16-bit per channel graphics is good, and internal floating point
based calculations independent of the actual image's bitdepth is good as well
(due to the fact multi-layered images often go above 1.0 and below 0.0, and
clipping severely damages the output.)

Also, while Im on the pro gimp 2.0 kick, I read the xcf2 threads. I agree,
something like gimp2 will need a better file format. Internally, I dont care
whats in it. Im not a gimp developer, Im a user, so I should have to care.
_However_, it needs to be able to be very extendable. I want to be able to
store all future gegl supported bitdepth and color space types with it, I want
to be able to depend on it to be stable the same way the professional people
depend on psd being a half way decent format, and I want it to someday exist,
the same way I want gimp2 to someday exist.

A lot of users out there are depending on the gimp development team to get
gimp2 done sometime in their lifetimes, and from what I see on here, this may
never happen. And Im going to be severely disappointed if this happens.

-- 
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

[Gimp-developer] Non-interactive (file-save-png)?

[Douglas Lewan]

I have more than a handful of PNGs that should all be cropped and saved 
in the same way, i.e. the same rectangle cut from the left side.

(file-save-png) either (1) wants to complain about saving a channel 
(presumably the cut selection) or (2) necessarily pops up the 
Save-As-PNG dialogue (even though all those parameters were presumably 
set in the call to (file-save-png).

Can anyone help?  Many thanks in advance.

--
,Doug
Douglas Lewan
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
cell: 908 7207 908
I just found the last bug.

___
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Gradient dithering

[Sven Neumann]

Hi,

Alastair Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I'm working on it; I've got 1.3.16 installed and working, and it doesn't look 
> as though the relevant code has changed too much (just been moved a bit).

It would be really nice to get a patch against 1.3.16.

> BTW - are there likely to be any more releases in the 1.2 series, or is 1.3 
> getting 100% of the attention nowadays?

We might do another 1.2 release but I doubt that this will happen and
it would surely be just be a bug-fix release with no new feature
whatsoever. GIMP-1.3 is close to being released as 2.0 and support for
1.2 will be dropped then.


Sven

___
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Gradient dithering

[Alastair Robinson]

Hi Sven,

On Friday 18 July 2003 8:09 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

> The patch is against 1.2.5 so we cannot check it in. But we should do
> if we got a patch against current CVS or 1.3.16 attached to the
> bug-report.

I'm working on it; I've got 1.3.16 installed and working, and it doesn't look 
as though the relevant code has changed too much (just been moved a bit).

BTW - are there likely to be any more releases in the 1.2 series, or is 1.3 
getting 100% of the attention nowadays?

All the best,
-- 
Alastair M. Robinson
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

We're here to give you a computer, not a religion.
 - attributed to Bob Pariseau, at the introduction of the Amiga

___
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] tentative GIMP 2.0 release plans

[Christopher Curtis]

Nathan Carl Summers wrote:

Yes, calling the new release 2.0 is a LIE.  I cannot emphasize this
strongly enough.  It is a lie because we have told many, many people what
2.0 will do.  To release a 2.0 without these features is pure
misrepresentation.  It is much too late to put the worms back into the
can.
"Me Too."

I've expressed my opinion before, but here are some links:

http://developer.gimp.org/gimp-future

Notable points:

The 1.3.x "Cleanup for 2.0" branch
 o Port gimp to gtk+-2.0
 o Cleanup some internal structures
 o Implement a few, well defined, new features
 o Think about a new way to handle plug-in distribution
The 1.9.x "Building GIMP 2.0" branch
o GEGL -- Gimp 'E' Graphical Library
o GCim -- The convergence integrated media object and utility library.
Colophon:

Feel free to send updates/comments/fixes/flames/whatever.  We will keep 
this document up-to-date and post new versions when neccessary.

Sven & Mitch

Second link:

http://developer.gimp.org/gimp-todo.html

Lots of features listed, all of them targetted at GIMP 1.4, none of 
which mention GEGL and fully conform the above document.  Some of which, 
in fact, I don't think have even been completed.  ("Script-Fu overhaul", 
 "Image/File Information", ?)

Chris

___
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] tentative GIMP 2.0 release plans

[Sven Neumann]

Hi Daniel,

Daniel Egger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>> Gimp is more than "Mitch and me," isn't it?
>
> No, it's not. I'm really surprised it took that long for people to
> notice.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here but actually I was
hoping to hear some helpful and constructive comments on gimp-help2
from you. Did you read my mail at all?


Sven
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] tentative GIMP 2.0 release plans

[Sven Neumann]

Hi,

Nathan Carl Summers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>> First of all, Mitch and me are not willing to raise the 2.0 versus 1.4
>> discussion again.
>
> Gimp is more than "Mitch and me," isn't it?

Yes it is. And if you are really willing to continue this sinless
discussion instead of helping us to get the release done, we can of
course do you that favor.

> Yes, calling the new release 2.0 is a LIE.  I cannot emphasize this
> strongly enough.  It is a lie because we have told many, many people
> what 2.0 will do.  To release a 2.0 without these features is pure
> misrepresentation.  It is much too late to put the worms back into
> the can.

It has lots and lots of features that we did never promise and despite
of 16bit support I don't see what we would be missing (provided we get
the basic CMYK supoprt finished that we started to work on). I really
don't see your point. I am trying hard but I cannot see the lie you
are talking about in big bold letters. I'm sorry but I don't have any
respect for someone who is trying to nail us on plans we made years
ago. This is just ridiculous, especially for a free software project
that people work on in their free time.


Sven
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] tentative GIMP 2.0 release plans

[Daniel Egger]

Am Fre, 2003-07-18 um 23.07 schrieb Nathan Carl Summers:

> Gimp is more than "Mitch and me," isn't it?

No, it's not. I'm really surprised it took that long for people to
notice.

-- 
Servus,
   Daniel


signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil

Re: [Gimp-developer] tentative GIMP 2.0 release plans

[Nathan Carl Summers]

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Sven Neumann wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I'd like to inform you about our plans for the GIMP 2.0 release.
>
> First of all, Mitch and me are not willing to raise the 2.0 versus 1.4
> discussion again.

Gimp is more than "Mitch and me," isn't it?

> Both sides have expressed their arguments. We took quite some time to
> think about all of them and to reconsider our decision. We came to the
> point that it should be called 2.0. It's just a number, so please,
> before you start the discussion again, think twice if it's worth it.

It really is worth it.  We will loose *A LOT* of trust with our users if
we disappoint them.  There are many more than a trivial number of people
whe expect CMYK, 16-bit, etc in gimp 2.0. These people are our *MOST
ACTIVE USERS* and those who are waiting for gimp to have these features.
Any time in the past two years that someone has asked on IRC or mailing
lists when gimp will have these features.

The second group mentioned I worry about more; the people who need these
features, when they hear that 2.0, will check it out and sorely be
disappointed.  I don't know how well a reference to the story of the Boy
Who Cried Wolf communicated cross-culturally, but I can tell you that once
lied to once, these people will probably not trust the gimp developers
again.  They will go elsewhere.  This is a big loss to us -- imagine what
contributions would come to gimp if people who professionally need
features like deep images would be using the software.  The lack of deep
image support up to this point has already cost us a lot; those who
flocked to the program formerly known as FilmGimp would have flocked to us
instead.

Yes, calling the new release 2.0 is a LIE.  I cannot emphasize this
strongly enough.  It is a lie because we have told many, many people what
2.0 will do.  To release a 2.0 without these features is pure
misrepresentation.  It is much too late to put the worms back into the
can.

Rockwalrus

___
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: new-xcf [Re: Gimp-developer Digest, Vol 10,Issue 18]

[Tomas Ogren]

On 18 July, 2003 - Joao S. O. Bueno sent me these 0,8K bytes:

> Christopher W. Curtis wrote:
> 
> >
> >The downside to using 'ar', really, is that WinZip doesn't support it.
> >I haven't verified this - I hope a Windows user can do so for us.  Just
> >for reference, attached below is a C&P of an ar archive I just made:
> 
> 
> Hmm..that just seens just plain as no downside at all.
> You see..windows users don't even have a comom tool to edit
> large ASCII files.

vim? emacs? .. I bet there are many editors that can handle large text
files..

/Tomas
-- 
Tomas Ögren, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.ing.umu.se/~stric/
|- Student at Computing Science, University of Umeå
`- Sysadmin at {cs,ing,acc}.umu.se
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

[Gimp-developer] tentative GIMP 2.0 release plans

[Sven Neumann]

Hi,

I'd like to inform you about our plans for the GIMP 2.0 release.

First of all, Mitch and me are not willing to raise the 2.0 versus 1.4
discussion again. Both sides have expressed their arguments. We took
quite some time to think about all of them and to reconsider our
decision. We came to the point that it should be called 2.0. It's just
a number, so please, before you start the discussion again, think
twice if it's worth it.

The plan is to rename the translation domains and the one file that
refers to 1.4, gimp-1.4.m4 to gimp-2.0.m4 this weekend, then release
1.3.17. This means that plug-ins using autoconf/automake will need to
use AM_PATH_GIMP_2_0.  Since we have also done a few changes to the
libgimp API since 1.3.16, plug-in authors will have to tweak their
code for 1.3.17 anyway.

Originally we wanted to get GIMP 2.0 out at GimpCon. Since that is
actually in three weeks, we will definitely not make it but I am still
optimistic that we will manage to feature-freeze at the Camp and do
something that we can call a 2.0 prerelease. Perhaps we will need to
declare one or two missing features as bugs but basically the release
made at GimpCon should have everything that GIMP 2.0 will have.

After the prerelease we will need some time to fix remaining bugs and
probably also to polish some things such as documentation. We should
however try not to do major string changes past this point to give the
translators a chance to get the translations into good shape for the
2.0.0 release.

Speaking of documentation, it would really be a shame if we had to
ship 2.0 w/o any help pages. I would call this a bug and we should
really try to get it fixed. The gimp-help2 module in CVS contains some
work which was started quite a while ago but since it has been
abandoned, the most reasonable approach at this point seems to be try
to bring the 1.2 help pages uptodate for 2.0. Any volunteers for this?

Actually I hate to declare such a time schedule as I just did. It
seems to take away some of the fun from hacking on GIMP. But at some
point we need to get a stable release out and IMO this should happen
soon.

Well, what will happen after the final 2.0.0 release? I think we
should try to target a quick 2.2 release with only minor feature
improvements but this is really something that I would want to discuss
at the camp...


Sven
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: Menubar in fullscreen mode [Re: [Gimp-developer] the userinstaller]

[Sven Neumann]

Hi,

thanks to Mitch the behaviour of full-screen mode is now fully
configurable. The change to implement this was probably a lot smaller
than most of the comments on this subject that appeared on this
list...


Sven
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Gradient dithering

[Sven Neumann]

Hi,

"Austin Donnelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>> Conceptually I like this, and the gotchas are toggleable
>> via the UI.
>
> I like the idea too.  It should be checked in and turned on by default.

The patch is against 1.2.5 so we cannot check it in. But we should do
if we got a patch against current CVS or 1.3.16 attached to the
bug-report.


Sven
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

[Gimp-developer] Re: Gradient dithering

[Guillermo S. Romero / Familia Romero]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (2003-07-18 at 1014.57 -0300):
> I tried to aply adptive supersampling with maximum depth,
> to compare the effects with the ones from the patch: I had to kill out 
> gimp after 20 minutes of 90% CPU use and no response.

To see supersampling at work, try doing a diagonal gradient moving the
mouse one pixel in each axis, and using a custom gradient like the
german one, with repeat mode triangle wave. Use two layers, one with
supersampling and the other without, then toggle visibility. You will
see how the supersampled version is a bit smoother, giving a orange
brown looking wavy image, instead of sharply changing pixels, more
like straight lines than a gradient. Work in zoom mode to build the
gradients, then compare zoomed and non zoomed.

Quick conclusion: supersampling is for people working with quickly
changing gradients, while dithering is for people working with slowly
changing gradients. They are different things for different problems,
and using the wrong one means wasting time.

GSR
 
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: new-xcf

[pcg]

On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 01:56:00PM -0400, Christopher Curtis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Where is there documentation on the ar format?  I can't seem to find 

man 5 ar
google ar file format

etc.. easy to find.. like tar and cpio (and to some extent zip), there is
no "the" ar format. susv3 has to say this about the format:

   If an archive file consists entirely of printable files, the entire
   archive file is printable. When ar creates an archive file, it creates
   administrative information in a format that is portable across all
   machines.

Yupp, that's all. Another good resource apart from manpages and google is
the binutils source, which contains a lot of real-world info.

-- 
  -==- |
  ==-- _   |
  ---==---(_)__  __   __   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: new-xcf

[pcg]

On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 09:45:51AM -0700, Manish Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Consider the case of a corrupted xcf file. Maybe only 1 layer out of 20 is
> corrupted. With this proposal, a user needs either a special tool to

(in this case, tar and zip would be preferable over ar, as ar tools are
not well-versed at repairing/ignoring corruption, tar/zip tools often are
better prepared).

> which is why I prefer it. zip/jar is especially crappy since the file index
> is at the end, which means it's harder to recover from a partial file.

Actually, zip has all file headers twice: once before the file within
the stream, and another time at the end.

-- 
  -==- |
  ==-- _   |
  ---==---(_)__  __   __   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] Gradient dithering

[Joao S. O. Bueno]

I tried the patch. It worked just fine, and IMHO should be used
as a fix to the aforementioned bug.
I tried to aply adptive supersampling with maximum depth,
to compare the effects with the ones from the patch: I had to kill out 
gimp after 20 minutes of 90% CPU use and no response.

Austin Donnelly wrote:
Conceptually I like this, and the gotchas are toggleable
via the UI.


I like the idea too.  It should be checked in and turned on by default.

Austin

___
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

___
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: new-xcf [Re: Gimp-developer Digest, Vol10, Issue 18]

[Joao S. O. Bueno]

Christopher W. Curtis wrote:



The downside to using 'ar', really, is that WinZip doesn't support it.
I haven't verified this - I hope a Windows user can do so for us.  Just
for reference, attached below is a C&P of an ar archive I just made:


Hmm..that just seens just plain as no downside at all.
You see..windows users don't even have a comom tool to edit
large ASCII files. Saying that a proprietary tool doesn't support this
archive type should be of no concern.
They will be able to open the New Gimp File based on ar on Microsoft 
Word, if there is such a need of a format hackeable by windows users.

Chris

___
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

RE: [Gimp-developer] Gradient dithering

[Austin Donnelly]

> Conceptually I like this, and the gotchas are toggleable
> via the UI.

I like the idea too.  It should be checked in and turned on by default.

Austin


___
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] A comment on CinePaint (was Re: new-xcf)

[Robin Rowe]

> At 5:10 PM -0400 7/17/03, Christopher Curtis wrote:
> >Just for the record ... I read the CinePaint file format, and it
> >doesn't even resemble XML.
>
> Yeah, I've had that argument with Robin - and lost :(.
>
> They are going for simple and scriptable over good design - I
> think they will regret it ver soon...

Actually, it was simple and scriptable over good *XML* design that was my
criteria for CPX. Whether good design and good XML design are the same is a
matter of opinion and circumstances.

In noting in the CPX spec that I had reused some good ideas from PPM P6 and
XML I had not intended to suggest CPX was XML.

Cheers,

Robin
---
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   Hollywood, California
www.CinePaint.org   Free motion picture and still image editing software


___
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer