[Synfig-devl] Action : Duplicate vs Single Copy Layer

[d . j . a . y]

What's really the difference ? 

In between there is also "Make new frame" who are bitmap related and call 
"Single Copy layer" source code point of view.

Nota : I just have fixed "Make new frame" action visibility for switch layer 
only

--
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=272487151=/4140
___
Synfig-devl mailing list
Synfig-devl@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/synfig-devl

Re: [Synfig-devl] time to 1.0.3 + community call ?

[d . j . a . y]

Yop,

>Hello, Djay!
>
>Thanks for taking bringing this up. ^__^
>
>2016-02-10 14:52 GMT+06:00  :
>> 1) What do you think about engage the process of a bug fix release for the 
>> 1.0.x series ?
>>
>> bug fix :
>> * current file version
>> * guide crash (merge pending)
>> * guide rulers remove
>>
>> enhancement:
>> * appdata
>> * hide all handles alt+0
>> * select param from handle
>> * split tangent indicator
>
>In the current situation I feel reasonable to release 1.2.0, based on
>current master branch.
>I think that master branch is stable enough, so instead of doing two
>releases (1.0.3 and 1.2.0) we can save our time and release only one.
>^__^

>From my side, i don't think master branch is stable enough ... 

We definitively need more test and more fixes (and you know, it's mainly what i 
try to do ... )
Too much new features are not stable/tested enough (brush / bones / several 
dead lock with mutex)
I report some... i miss to report others (i suspect problems with linking / 
export -Parabolic Shoot- with optimized rendering)

I have the regret to say that Synfig (from the dev version point of view) is 
losting the stability it just kept in the previous releases.

>
>In 1.2.0 we will have:
>* Testing version of Cobra (as experimental feature)
>* Lipsync / Papagayo integration
>* New preferences dialogue
>* C++11 compatibility
>* anything else I forgot ^__^

>I believe those features are highly demanded by users and can help
>bring attention to the project.

I believe a very stable synfig with all the feature polished (bones:yes but IK 
? / brush:yes but crash and slow /  ) it already have will kept the 
attention to the project... 

My best ... 

--
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=272487151=/4140
___
Synfig-devl mailing list
Synfig-devl@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/synfig-devl

Re: [Synfig-devl] time to 1.0.3 + community call ?

[Yu Chen]

Hi,

>From a user's perspective, a bug-fixed release 1.0.3 will be very
appreciated. But if there is no one would like to do the job, I can fully
understand it, we have been facing the limited development resources for a
long time. A new release even it is not stable enough is better than no
release.


Cheers!

~ yu

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 8:20 PM,  wrote:

> Yop,
>
> >Hello, Djay!
> >
> >Thanks for taking bringing this up. ^__^
> >
> >2016-02-10 14:52 GMT+06:00  :
> >> 1) What do you think about engage the process of a bug fix release for
> the 1.0.x series ?
> >>
> >> bug fix :
> >> * current file version
> >> * guide crash (merge pending)
> >> * guide rulers remove
> >>
> >> enhancement:
> >> * appdata
> >> * hide all handles alt+0
> >> * select param from handle
> >> * split tangent indicator
> >
> >In the current situation I feel reasonable to release 1.2.0, based on
> >current master branch.
> >I think that master branch is stable enough, so instead of doing two
> >releases (1.0.3 and 1.2.0) we can save our time and release only one.
> >^__^
>
> >From my side, i don't think master branch is stable enough ...
>
> We definitively need more test and more fixes (and you know, it's mainly
> what i try to do ... )
> Too much new features are not stable/tested enough (brush / bones /
> several dead lock with mutex)
> I report some... i miss to report others (i suspect problems with linking
> / export -Parabolic Shoot- with optimized rendering)
>
> I have the regret to say that Synfig (from the dev version point of view)
> is losting the stability it just kept in the previous releases.
>
> >
> >In 1.2.0 we will have:
> >* Testing version of Cobra (as experimental feature)
> >* Lipsync / Papagayo integration
> >* New preferences dialogue
> >* C++11 compatibility
> >* anything else I forgot ^__^
>
> >I believe those features are highly demanded by users and can help
> >bring attention to the project.
>
> I believe a very stable synfig with all the feature polished (bones:yes
> but IK ? / brush:yes but crash and slow /  ) it already have will kept
> the attention to the project...
>
> My best ...
>
>
> --
> Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
> APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
> Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
> Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=272487151=/4140
> ___
> Synfig-devl mailing list
> Synfig-devl@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/synfig-devl
>
--
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=272487151=/4140___
Synfig-devl mailing list
Synfig-devl@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/synfig-devl

Re: [Synfig-devl] Action : Duplicate vs Single Copy Layer

[d . j . a . y]

Bloup, 

>2016-02-12 18:04 GMT+06:00  :
>> What's really the difference ?
>>
>> In between there is also "Make new frame" who are bitmap related and call 
>> "Single Copy layer" source code point of view.

>"Single Copy layer" used for Image Layers only. It does the same as
>"Duplicate", but also creates a copy of linked file. So, if you have
>Image Layer with "file.png", then calling "Single Copy layer" will
>create its copy AND also copies the "file.png" to "file..png" (and
>assigns the new file to this layer copy).

Ok ... but "make new frame" and "single copy layer" ... 

Does the difference is just : "make new frame" only work from switch group 
layer ?

In fact, i think that with "copy/paste" , "duplicate", "make new frame", 
"single copy layer" (did i forgot another one?) we have too many similar 
actions.

Best my.

--
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=272487151=/4140
___
Synfig-devl mailing list
Synfig-devl@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/synfig-devl

Re: [Synfig-devl] Action : Duplicate vs Single Copy Layer

[Konstantin Dmitriev]

2016-02-12 22:45 GMT+06:00  :
> Bloup,
>
>>2016-02-12 18:04 GMT+06:00  :
>>> What's really the difference ?
>>>
>>> In between there is also "Make new frame" who are bitmap related and call 
>>> "Single Copy layer" source code point of view.
>
>>"Single Copy layer" used for Image Layers only. It does the same as
>>"Duplicate", but also creates a copy of linked file. So, if you have
>>Image Layer with "file.png", then calling "Single Copy layer" will
>>create its copy AND also copies the "file.png" to "file..png" (and
>>assigns the new file to this layer copy).
>
> Ok ... but "make new frame" and "single copy layer" ...
>
> Does the difference is just : "make new frame" only work from switch group 
> layer ?
>
> In fact, i think that with "copy/paste" , "duplicate", "make new frame", 
> "single copy layer" (did i forgot another one?) we have too many similar 
> actions.

You can try to merge "Simple Copy Layer" to "Duplicate". But consider,
that "Simple Copy Layer" assigns a different layer name when copy is
done. Duplicate action leaves  layer name untouched.

K.

--
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=272487151=/4140
___
Synfig-devl mailing list
Synfig-devl@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/synfig-devl

Re: [Synfig-devl] time to 1.0.3 + community call ?

[Konstantin Dmitriev]

2016-02-12 18:20 GMT+06:00  :
> Yop,
>
>>Hello, Djay!
>>
>>Thanks for taking bringing this up. ^__^
>>
>>2016-02-10 14:52 GMT+06:00  :
>>> 1) What do you think about engage the process of a bug fix release for the 
>>> 1.0.x series ?
>>>
>>> bug fix :
>>> * current file version
>>> * guide crash (merge pending)
>>> * guide rulers remove
>>>
>>> enhancement:
>>> * appdata
>>> * hide all handles alt+0
>>> * select param from handle
>>> * split tangent indicator
>>
>>In the current situation I feel reasonable to release 1.2.0, based on
>>current master branch.
>>I think that master branch is stable enough, so instead of doing two
>>releases (1.0.3 and 1.2.0) we can save our time and release only one.
>>^__^
>
> >From my side, i don't think master branch is stable enough ...
>
> We definitively need more test and more fixes (and you know, it's mainly what 
> i try to do ... )
Yes, your testing work is much appreciated.

> Too much new features are not stable/tested enough (brush / bones / several 
> dead lock with mutex)

Brush functionality is the same as in 1.0.2. In any case, Brus
functionality is still at experimental status. i doubt someone using
it seriously at its current state.

Bones functionality is the same as in 1.0.2.

Whats with mutex?

> I report some... i miss to report others (i suspect problems with linking / 
> export -Parabolic Shoot- with optimized rendering)

Optimized rendering engine (Cobra) is surely unstable. But we don't
force people to use it. They can stick with Legacy.

> I have the regret to say that Synfig (from the dev version point of view) is 
> losting the stability it just kept in the previous releases.

I don't see serious regressions in master. Quite opposite, there are
lot problems resolved, comparing to 1.0.2 or even 1.0.3.

>>In 1.2.0 we will have:
>>* Testing version of Cobra (as experimental feature)
>>* Lipsync / Papagayo integration
>>* New preferences dialogue
>>* C++11 compatibility
>>* anything else I forgot ^__^
>
>>I believe those features are highly demanded by users and can help
>>bring attention to the project.
>
> I believe a very stable synfig with all the feature polished (bones:yes but 
> IK ? / brush:yes but crash and slow /  ) it already have will kept the 
> attention to the project...

Polishing Bones and Brushes will take several months. We don't have
money for that right now.  In fact, even Cobra development is on the
edge And, in any case I prefer to polish those features in master, not
in 1.0,x branch, because otherwise we will have pain with merge.

P.S. BTW, we can't resolve brush speed issues without optimized
rendering engine.

On the other hand, I understand your points. At the moment I am busy
with mentoring Cobra development and managing production of Morevna
Episode 3 (which is a testing ground for Cobra and other software). If
I have time for 1.0.3, then I surely will do. But at the moment I see
that releasing "most what we have now" is a better way to go.

Best Regards,
K.

--
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=272487151=/4140
___
Synfig-devl mailing list
Synfig-devl@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/synfig-devl

Re: [Synfig-devl] Action : Duplicate vs Single Copy Layer

[Konstantin Dmitriev]

2016-02-12 18:04 GMT+06:00  :
> What's really the difference ?
>
> In between there is also "Make new frame" who are bitmap related and call 
> "Single Copy layer" source code point of view.

"Single Copy layer" used for Image Layers only. It does the same as
"Duplicate", but also creates a copy of linked file. So, if you have
Image Layer with "file.png", then calling "Single Copy layer" will
create its copy AND also copies the "file.png" to "file..png" (and
assigns the new file to this layer copy).

> Nota : I just have fixed "Make new frame" action visibility for switch layer 
> only

Great!

K.

--
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=272487151=/4140
___
Synfig-devl mailing list
Synfig-devl@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/synfig-devl