On Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 07:13:32PM +0000, Alan Horkan wrote:
> It might help you to understand my negativity when I explain that the
> underlying instability of windows doesn't do the gimp any favours.  When
> binaries are available windows is the easiest platform to test on and in a
> way the instability of the platform is actually helpful for testing.  I
> have tried to compile the gimp serveral times during 2.1 but rather than
> asking even more questions here and needing to chase down and compile lots
> of little dependancies and parts of the toolchain I dont have I waited
> for more releases to try again (until eventually there was a windows
> binary I could test with).
  So, you're telling us you haven't yet tried the current cvs version of
gfig, yet asking us to use the 2.0 one?

> My comments [1] were very restrained, I did say it had potential.  The new
> SDI application style inteface for Gfig will be very good as it is an
> easier way to present all the features that Gfig managed to cram into the
> old dialog style of interface.  The Gfig had crashed several times
> (reproducably and in different places)

  I haven't seen any bug-report for this.  I'm am aware of some bugs in
gfig and I have told the mailing list about them.  May be you could take
the time to check if your crashes and mines are related?

> and if I recall correctly it crashed badly enough to take the rest of
> the gimp down with it.

  I really doubt it.

> Feedback takes time, and I haven't gotten around to checking if the
> problems are known issues or writing a detailed explaination of how to
> reproduce them or otherwise tracking them down.

  One bug is very easy to trigger: draw a line, erase it, draw another
line.  Don't tell me this takes too much time to check.

> I have started to David Odin offlist about it further.

  The mail you send me only shown you're not following the current gfig
development as gfig *does* already use a GtkUIManager toolbar.
> [1] The new Gfig is definately is a bit rough around the edges. It has a
> lot of potential though. It really should be reverted to the old usuable
> ugly but stable version for the 2.2 release.

  new gfig has some issues and I've tried to list them on this very
mailing-list.  If you can list more, please list them in the correct
  and as I already said before, using the 2.0 version of gfig would mean
to at least port the old version to the HIG standards, and to update to
the new apis.  I don't volonteer to do this, but if you can come up with
such a beast I will consider to compare both versions.



A conscience is what hurts when all your other parts feel so good.
Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to