Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4
michael chang wrote: > On 9/23/05, Michael Schumacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>michael chang wrote: > The problem is that when the timeout dies, then should be a new > version; if there isn't one, it's kinda silly to have to re-install > the same version to extend the timeout. Reinstalling the same version wouldn't help, I'm talking about a hard timeout there - created when the release tarball is made, for example, and set to e.g. 60 or 90 days into the future. > In that case, determining a timeout would be hard... Not really. Running development releases is only useful up to a certain time anyway - once current CVS has advanced considerably, there is not much to be gained from using an outdated one. Also, this should encourage people to keep the latest stable release installed - after all, this one will not time out. And finally, if anyone insists on using a development release longer than the timeout lets him, he can alwyys use the source and disable the timeout at compile time - and we can assume that if someone pops up with an outdated release he know what he's doing. Michael -- The GIMP > http://www.gimp.org | IRC: irc://irc.gimp.org/gimp Wiki > http://wiki.gimp.org | .de: http://gimpforum.de Plug-ins > http://registry.gimp.org | ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Gimp Website
No, I made it with Inkscape and only smudged things here and there later. oh, and added the brush. But on general I like to keep things vector based, this wat they can always be scaled up and down. From: Carol Spears <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Preacher Public <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CC: GIMPDev Subject: Re: [Gimp-developer] Gimp Website Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 11:49:11 -0700 On Sat, Sep 24, 2005 at 01:29:21PM -0400, Preacher Public wrote: > > So, what can I do? > First of all I'd like to suggest a small website makeover. Gimp is a > graphic tool and the website sould reflect it by having a bit more visual > punch to it. > here's the quick makeover I did - just a suggestion, based on the > "clearlooks" gnome theme color pallette: > http://www.geocities.com/preacher_mg/gimpweb.html > did you make that wilber with gimp? carol ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4
Hi, Axel Wernicke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > How about writing it with large red letters on the splash screen - it > can't be skipped and is displayed long enough to get the message > through :) Of course the splash screen can be skipped. AFAIK many distributons configure GIMP to not show a splash screen. Since GIMP implements startup notification, that's a very reasonable thing to do. Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Gimp Website
Hi, "Preacher Public" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'd like to volunteer to help with updating the Gimp website; I was > told by Sven on the usability forum to apply to this mailing list. Actually, I asked you to join the gimp-web mailing list. Perhaps you want to take the discussion there? Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4
On 9/25/05, Michael Schumacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > michael chang wrote: > > On 9/23/05, Michael Schumacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>michael chang wrote: > > > The problem is that when the timeout dies, then should be a new > > version; if there isn't one, it's kinda silly to have to re-install > > the same version to extend the timeout. > > Reinstalling the same version wouldn't help, I'm talking about a hard > timeout there - created when the release tarball is made, for example, > and set to e.g. 60 or 90 days into the future. What I mean is lets say the software times out after 70 days the RC/beta is made. That means that there has to be a new RC/beta after 70 days, or otherwise no one can use it post those 70 days. If there isn't, then someone might just rebuild the current RC for another 70 days, which is pointless. E.g. if there was a 2.3.5 today, and it expires in 60 days. So that means 2.3.6 has to be released within 60 days. How do we know 2.3.6 will be ready in 60 days? If you want to force yourself on such a release cycle, by all means, but last I checked, GIMP doesn't used fixed release cycles. I could be wrong though; I'm not a GIMP developer. I mean, it's not like fixed release cycles are all that bad of a thing. Then again, you might want to give yourself some leeway (e.g. trying to release a version of GIMP 15 days before the last RC/beta expired or something; that way delays can be absorbed into the 15 days that remain from the last RC/beta/devel release). > > In that case, determining a timeout would be hard... > > Not really. Running development releases is only useful up to a certain > time anyway - once current CVS has advanced considerably, there is not > much to be gained from using an outdated one. Also, this should > encourage people to keep the latest stable release installed - after > all, this one will not time out. Well, that's very true. I believe the 2.2.8 version of gimp is really a 2.2.7+cvssomething on Debian - and those are offical packages. > And finally, if anyone insists on using a development release longer > than the timeout lets him, he can alwyys use the source and disable the > timeout at compile time - and we can assume that if someone pops up with > an outdated release he know what he's doing. True. -- ~Mike - Just my two cents - No man is an island, and no man is unable. ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP 2.3.4
Hi, Michael Schumacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Reinstalling the same version wouldn't help, I'm talking about a hard > timeout there - created when the release tarball is made, for example, > and set to e.g. 60 or 90 days into the future. What's all this fuss? There is absolutely no reason why we should cripple any GIMP release, development version or not, by doing such silly things. This is Free Software. We are distributing it as source code. If someone wants to build binaries and distribute them, so be it. You might not have noticed yet, but binary distribution of the GIMP 2.3 series is not in any way discouraged. Of course we appreciate if pacakagers make it clear that they are distributing an unfinished development release but that's something we can only ask for. Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] GLib requirement bumped to 2.8.0
Hi, I am sorry that I couldn't have announced this earlier. But when I tried to build the 2.3.4 tarball tonight, I ran into the problem that due to a change in glib 2.8, the --dump-gimprc-manpage and --dump-gimprc-system command-line options stopped working. These are needed for 'make dist'. So I had to do now what was actually planned to happen after the 2.3.4 release. The HEAD branch of gimp now requires glib >= 2.8.0. The GTK+ dependency is still on 2.6 and is supposed to stay there for a while. It will probably also be bumped to 2.8 before GIMP 2.4 is released, but we will try to wait until more distros have caught up and provide binary packages of GTK+ 2.8. I hope that updating to GLib 2.8 doesn't cause too much trouble for anyone of you. Sven PS: Due to this problem, I will probably delay the 2.3.4 release until tomorrow. ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
