On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, David Odin wrote:
> Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 21:28:44 +0100
> From: David Odin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Alan Horkan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: new gfig [Re: [Gimp-developer] canvas background options]
> 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?
I have tried the version in gimp 2.2 pre1
> 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?
I will try, but I only have a working copy of gimp 2.2 pre1 on my home
> 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.
Working at home, verify the bug reoccurs and bringing it takes time. I
use the computers available to me and they dont lend themselves to keeping
up to date and I've never had much luck compiling the gimp from CVS (but
that is just me, I'm not claiming it is difficult if you know what you are
doing, have admin rights on your machine and a fast internet connection).
I'll try and look at a CVS version of gfig this week, but it is painfully
difficult for me to get this organised.
> 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,
I was suggesting shipping the old unmodified version because it was more
To be nominally HIG compliant would require some adjustment of the old
dialog. To meet the spirit of the HIG and provide a more user friendly
does require the valuable work you are doing.
If gfig is not frozen and will be shipping a more stable and up to date
version than was in gimp 2.2 pre1 then that would be a different matter
entirely. I would much prefer to see your version (with a few
improvements) to be the one included when gimp 2.2 is released.
- Alan H.
Gimp-developer mailing list