I wrote:
> The change is almost trivial, if my suggestion of simply using the
> selection without asking any questions is acceptable. The status of
> this, as far as I can see, is that the bug report (
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=72959 ) is waiting for
> somebody to say that it
Hi,
"William Skaggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The change is almost trivial, if my suggestion of simply using the
> selection without asking any questions is acceptable. The status of
> this, as far as I can see, is that the bug report (
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=72959 ) is
On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 08:24:59 -0800, Carol Spears <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 02:35:51PM +0530, Laxminarayan Kamath wrote:
>
>
> > On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 17:31:35 -0800, Carol Spears <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 10:59:39AM +1300, Joseph Heled wrote:
Sven Neumann wrote:
Hi,
Joseph Heled <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
In 2.2, the histogram always takes the full image. I thought that in
the past it took the selection if there was one. Am I imagining
this?
Yes, I think you are imagining this. There's a rather old bug report
about it and basically
On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 02:35:51PM +0530, Laxminarayan Kamath wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 17:31:35 -0800, Carol Spears <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 10:59:39AM +1300, Joseph Heled wrote:
> > >
> > > In 2.2, the histogram always takes the full image. I thought that in the
>
Joseph Heled wrote:
> In 2.2, the histogram always takes the full image. I thought that in the
> past it took the selection if there was one. Am I imagining this? Is there
> a way to get the histogram for just the selection?
Carol wrote:
> it is easy enough to make a new layer of the selection
Joseph Heled <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In 2.2, the histogram always takes the full image. I thought that in
> the past it took the selection if there was one. Am I imagining
> this?
Sven writes:
> Yes, I think you are imagining this. There's a rather old bug report
> about it and basically
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 17:31:35 -0800, Carol Spears <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 10:59:39AM +1300, Joseph Heled wrote:
> >
> > In 2.2, the histogram always takes the full image. I thought that in the
> > past it took the selection if there was one. Am I imagining this? Is there
Hi,
Joseph Heled <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In 2.2, the histogram always takes the full image. I thought that in
> the past it took the selection if there was one. Am I imagining
> this?
Yes, I think you are imagining this. There's a rather old bug report
about it and basically we agreed that
On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 10:59:39AM +1300, Joseph Heled wrote:
>
> In 2.2, the histogram always takes the full image. I thought that in the
> past it took the selection if there was one. Am I imagining this? Is there
> a way to get the histogram for just the selection?
>
it is easy enough to mak
William Skaggs wrote:
Joseph Heled wrote:
In 2.2, the histogram always takes the full image. I thought that in the past it
took the selection if there was one. Am I imagining this? Is there a way to get
the histogram for just the selection?
See http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=72959
Fee
In 2.2, the histogram always takes the full image. I thought that in the past it
took the selection if there was one. Am I imagining this? Is there a way to get
the histogram for just the selection?
-Joseph
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTEC
12 matches
Mail list logo
