> 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 regr
> 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/gi
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 a
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 Donnell
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
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
[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
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
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
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 th
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 a
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 argumen
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
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
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 commen
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
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
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 an
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 t
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 de
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 f
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 wil
22 matches
Mail list logo
