Hi,
On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 11:39 +0200, Raphaël Quinet wrote:
> I don't think that it would be a problem. Over the years, Jernej's
> installer has evolved into something that can only be described as an
> "official" package for Windows. Regarless of what we state about it,
> I bet that most user
Von: Simon Budig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I don't think hosting a gimpshop-specific list is a good idea, it would
> imply that we'd support gimpshop. Since we know that it is a badly
> executed hack and its author apparently is not interested in
> cooperation, I believe this would be a bad idea.
Isn
Christopher Curtis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On 3/30/07, David Marrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > We already get Gimpshop users coming to the mailing lists asking for
> > help and,
>
> Would it be a good idea to embrace these users as well? Gimpshop may
> be a non-supported hack, but hosting
On 3/30/07, David Marrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We already get Gimpshop users coming to the mailing lists asking for help and,
Would it be a good idea to embrace these users as well? Gimpshop may
be a non-supported hack, but hosting a Gimpshop-specific list may
provide insight into a larger
Sven Neumann wrote:
> In my opinion we should stick to this rule. It would make a lot of sense
> to make it easier for the user to locate our recommendations for binary
> packages. If user agent detection helps to remove one or two clicks,
> then I am fine with that. But if there's a download butto
On 3/29/07, Joao S. O. Bueno Calligaris wrote:
> And then grab the gtk+, and gimp win binaries. And all those pages are
> in English only - (most people in my target audiences are not
> proeficient enough in English - so, just imagine all those pages are
> in some language you don't understand, an
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 09:09:05 +0200
From: Martin Nordholts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I don't see why providing links to recomended binaries on the front
page would put any more responsibility on us.
We already direct users to recomendeded binaries, and as long as we
continue to be c
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 08:20:58 +0200, Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] But if there's a download button on the
> front-page that directly instantiates the download, then we are
> effectively providing binary packages. It doesn't matter if the packages
> are hosted elsewhere. To the use
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 00:29:26 +0100, David Marrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It was suggested on the gimp-web mailing list that we could provide direct
> links
> to binary packages for popular platforms such as Windows or Mac, based on
> user
> agent detection. The link would be provide from th
I don't see why providing links to recomended binaries on the front page
would put any more responsibility on us.
We already direct users to recomendeded binaries, and as long as we
continue to be clear that we don't build those binaries ourselves, why
should we not make it easier to reach those?
Hi,
On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 00:29 +0100, David Marrs wrote:
> Sven indicated that this idea has already been considered and rejected by the
> team and that I should bring it up for discussion here before proceeding any
> further.
We haven't really discussed and rejected this particular idea. The
Dear all,
It was suggested on the gimp-web mailing list that we could provide direct
links
to binary packages for popular platforms such as Windows or Mac, based on user
agent detection. The link would be provide from the home page - see
http://next.gimp.org/ for a taster. I liked the proposal
12 matches
Mail list logo