On Wed, 2006-08-02 at 01:46 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Quoting Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > a while ago we went over all plug-ins, reviewed the procedure blurbs and
> > marked them for translation. The blurbs are shown in the image status
> > bar and as menu tooltips. This hasn't happened for Script-Fu yet, even
> > though the script procedure blurbs are shown in the status bar as well.
> > Thus, we need to do the same for all scripts. Any volunteers for this
> > job? This should happen real soon now, because we want to enter string
> > freeze for 2.4 as soon as possible. Your help would be very much
> > appreciated.
> Sorry that I took so long. I have generated a patch (against 2.2.12)  
> which I hope is close to what was expected.

Unfortunatel not. You apparently diffed between modified scripts from
2.3 and original scripts from 2.2, therefore most of the patch is
bogus :(

>  It is available as a plain  
> text file at  
> http://flashingtwelve.brickfilms.com/GIMP/Bugzilla/patch-script-fu-new-blurbs 
> (160kb) or available as a GZIPped file at  
> http://flashingtwelve.brickfilms.com/GIMP/Bugzilla/patch-script-fu-new-blurbs.gz
> (27kb).
> Even if I didn't completely screw it up, I imagine there will be some  
> discussion. I have many doubts about my wording myself. Some issues as  
> I see them:
> 1. There are unfortunately some changes in the patch that are not  
> related to the blurbs: I made these changes in order to get the  
> scripts to function and forgot to back out the changes when I  
> generated the patch. It mostly concerned the  
> 'gimp-layer-set-lock-alpha' being deprecated and I replaced it with  
> 'gimp-layer-set-preserve-trans'.

It's 'gimp-layer-set-preserve-trans' that is deprecated, and
gimp-layer-set-lock-alpha' is the new function.

>  It also occurred when there was an  
> out-dated usage of "SF-COLOR" as a text string (e.g., "white").

Likewise. "white" is the new version, '(255 255 255) the old one.

>  I  
> understand that this is not proper update policy but I am not keen on  
> undoing something that has to eventually be done.
> 2. In a couple of places I employed the term "selection frame" in  
> order to differentiate operations that affected the selection mask  
> versus those that affected the selection's contents (e.g.,  
> 'script-fu-selection-rounded-rectangle' is described as "Round the  
> corners of the current selection frame"). I feel that "selection  
> frame" is more intuitive than "selection mask" in these contexts.

But "selection mask" is the known term here. "selection frame" is
imho totally unusual and will confuse people.

> 3. Many scripts will operate on the non-transparent portion of the  
> active layer (i.e., where the alpha channel is not BLACK) if there is  
> nothing selected. I have termed these "alpha objects" and consistently  
> employed the phrase "an alpha object or selection" to describe this  
> situation. If a better terminology is proposed to describe this, it  
> should be a simple matter to change these using "sed".

I'm not sure about this...

> 4) I do not understand what is happening with the  
> 'script-fu-gap-dup-continue' portion of the patch. I only changed the  
> blurb but for some reason the entire file is shown as added lines.  
> (The patch works, I just don't understand why.)

GAP scripts are not part of gimp and should be patched separately.

> 5) I do not understand what is occurring with "SF-GRADIENT" in the  
> 'script-fu-lava' registration. Other "SF-GRADIENT"s create a gradient  
> selection widget while 'script-fu-lava' still presents a text-entry.
> 6) I used the word "widget" in some of the descriptions of scripts  
> which generate webpage components. I am comfortable with its usage in  
> this sense but perhaps others are not. So long as the reason for  
> avoiding the term "widget" has nothing to do with The Apple Company's  
> opprobrious attempt to usurp this otherwise ubiquitous computing term,  
> I am open to suggestions. :-)

I haven't heared the word "widget" in the context of a web page.
Actually, in GTK+ world it's pretty clearly reserved for GtkWidgets.

> 7) Finally, the menu registration is per 2.2.12 and therefore the  
> scripts' relocation in 2.3 needs to be addressed by someone familiar  
> with their new locations.

You marked all menu paths for translation, which is wrong. They don't
need to be marked any more.

Sorry, but the patch as-is is unfortunately unapplyable. What is
needed is a patch against a recent 2.3 version, or preferrably


Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to