Hi Jason,
that's exactly the point! The zoom steps should be proportional to the
current zoom level. And IMHO they could easily be as small as one hundredth
of the current zoom level (e.g. 1%-steps at 100%).
For me the super-duper solution was to have two configurable zoom steps in
the presets: 1)
On Sun 28 Oct 2012 08:04:08 AM CDT, Bot Obi wrote:
IMHO they could easily be as small as one
hundredth of the current zoom level (e.g. 1%-steps at 100%).
That would be too fine of increment for me.
For me the super-duper solution was to have two configurable zoom
steps in the presets: 1) a "
On 22.09.12 at 7:52 pm Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
We have a buildbot (Jenkins based) that we use to check that our
commits to GIMP, GEGL, babl, etc. build ok and tests run properly. It
needs a new maintainer. If nobody steps up, then it will have to be
abandoned.
If anyone with Jenkins experienc
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 6:05 PM, scl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've taken over the maintainership for Jenkins from Martin Nordholt.
> First of all I'd like to thank Martin for his good work and wish him the
> best of luck for the future.
>
> Some of you might already know me from the GIMP Bugzilla and vari
Adding a new "custom zoom" mode with adjustable zoom steps in the presets
wouldn't remove anything that anybody got used to.
I don't think the programmatic complexity would increase dramatically as
everything that's needed for the feature is already implemented (already by
now the zoom level can be
Jason Simanek (jsima...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Sun 28 Oct 2012 08:04:08 AM CDT, Bot Obi wrote:
> >For me the super-duper solution was to have two configurable zoom
> >steps in the presets: 1) a "fine zoom" step and 2) a "standard zoom"
> >step.
[...]
> The trick of course to changing something like
