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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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]
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
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
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 :)
--
-==-
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
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
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
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
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
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
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]
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
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
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
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
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
(
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
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.
--
-==- |
==-- _ |
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 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
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)
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
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
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.
--
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
* 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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. :)
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]
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
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
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]
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
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
48 matches
Mail list logo
