On 7/14/2012 16:23, Richard Gitschlag wrote:
> Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 14:56:50 -1000
> From: 75270.3...@earthlink.net
> To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org
> Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP 2.8 usability discussion - Argument
consolidation and referencing
>
> In particular, a p
> Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 14:56:50 -1000
> From: 75270.3...@earthlink.net
> To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org
> Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP 2.8 usability discussion - Argument
> consolidation and referencing
>
> In particular, a problem I encounter with workflow in GIMP is
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 4:56 AM, scott s. wrote:
> It seems to me that opening vice import has many of the same issues/
> useability requirements that should be considered. In particular, a
> problem I encounter with workflow in GIMP is that GIMP doesn't really
> handle (AFAIK) meta-data embedded
On 7/14/2012 04:45, Chris Mohler wrote:
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 5:47 AM, Johannes wrote:
This is the consensus so far (correct me if I am wrong):
### CORRECTED
There are a handful of people developing GIMP. They are following this:
http://gui.gimp.org/index.php/Save_%2B_export_specification
On 14.07.2012 19:24, Johannes wrote:
Am 14.07.2012 16:45, schrieb Chris Mohler:
You can:
A: Bitch
B: Adapt
C: Fork
I suggest option B or C - they're likely to be the most productive.
In fact, I am preparing option B.
Precondition for this is a good understanding of what is to be adapted.
Am 14.07.2012 19:24, schrieb Johannes:
> not cast perls before
> people without arguments.
...and no pearls, too.
--
Johannes
___
gimp-user-list mailing list
gimp-user-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
Am 14.07.2012 16:45, schrieb Chris Mohler:
> You can:
>
> A: Bitch
>
> B: Adapt
>
> C: Fork
>
> I suggest option B or C - they're likely to be the most productive.
In fact, I am preparing option B.
Precondition for this is a good understanding of what is to be adapted.
I don't want my changes
Well, that is the question isn't it?
On 7/14/2012 7:34 AM, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Johannes wrote:
Having followed the discussions on the GIMP usability changes for some weeks
now, what I am missing most is a direct comparison of arguments.
Therefore let's
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 5:47 AM, Johannes wrote:
> This is the consensus so far (correct me if I am wrong):
### CORRECTED
There are a handful of people developing GIMP. They are following this:
http://gui.gimp.org/index.php/Save_%2B_export_specification
Based on this:
http://gui.gimp.org/index
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Johannes wrote:
> Having followed the discussions on the GIMP usability changes for some weeks
> now, what I am missing most is a direct comparison of arguments.
>
> Therefore let's consolidate the consensus and the arguments pro and contra
> "Making the new open/s
Having followed the discussions on the GIMP usability changes for some
weeks now, what I am missing most is a direct comparison of arguments.
Therefore let's consolidate the consensus and the arguments pro and
contra "Making the new open/save/export behavior of GIMP 2.8 optional"
by giving arg
11 matches
Mail list logo
