Hi,
On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 00:23 +, William Skaggs wrote:
> No! The way I did it was broken. But the whole process is broken. It
> is impossible to fix the interface if every tiny change can be vetoed
> by any random person. The question is, how to find a process that
> actually allows cha
Simon Budig wrote:
> Martin Nordholts ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> I'm currently interested in looking into this, mostly because I think
>> this needs a clean solution before I will be able to cleanly finalize
>> the GimpRectangleTool.
>
> I have a prototypeish parser running here, specified with
Michael Schumacher wrote:
> And you do feel that the way to do this is to just commit things, and
> everyone else has to keep up with the changes without knowing what
> others are to be expected, and if something isn't right, we'll just have
> to revert it?
No! The way I did it was broken. But
Martin Nordholts ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I'm currently interested in looking into this, mostly because I think
> this needs a clean solution before I will be able to cleanly finalize
> the GimpRectangleTool.
I have a prototypeish parser running here, specified with yacc:
$ ./parseunit
2m + 3
Sven Neumann wrote:
> Moin,
>
> I would like to propose another project. Whether we want this for 2.6 or
> later pretty much depends on whether we find someone who wants to work
> on this. But I think we absolutely need this if we want to improve our
> user interface.
>
> What I am talking about
Hi,
On Mon, 2007-12-17 at 20:51 +, William Skaggs wrote:
> > You have a point here. But you also need to look at the costs of
> > renaming a menu item. The documentation needs to change and
> > users need to learn the new name. With the amount of plug-ins that
> > we have it is rather diffi
William Skaggs wrote:
> So I have a pretty coherent vision of which filters are useful
> for which tasks, and what sort of interface a user needs in
> order to make use of them. I feel that, given a free hand,
> I would be able very rapidly to turn GIMP's filter collection
> into something that t
Hi,
On Mon, 2007-12-17 at 20:21 +, William Skaggs wrote:
> As I tried to explain, Wrap is not useful with edge detection.
> It is very useful with blurring, because it makes opposite
> edges look similar. With edge detection, all it does is to
> cause an edge to be drawn at the border of the
Sven wrote:
> You have a point here. But you also need to look at the costs of
> renaming a menu item. The documentation needs to change and
> users need to learn the new name. With the amount of plug-ins that
> we have it is rather difficult to keep track of changes so IMO we should
> try to a
From: Csar Rolln [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Please, don't remove the Wrap and Smear options,
> because it are useful (tileable patterns is a example).
> Removing the functionality of GIMP isn't usability.
As I tried to explain, Wrap is not useful with edge detection.
It is very useful with blurring, bec
> 4) Removed the "wrap-style" radio buttons from the
interface [...]
>
> This was a little bit controversial. Let me add
that as far as I can
> see, it was a mistake to create these options in the
first place. The
> idea behind the Wrap option was to let a user make
tileable patterns,
> but it w
On Dec 17, 2007 10:32 AM, Sven Neumann wrote:
> As you already noted, this plug-in does not have much use for the casual
> user.
Quite in opposite. Edge detection is one of the steps to make sky not
look pale on photos ;-)
Alexandre
___
Gimp-developer
GIMP 2.4.3 is another bug-fix release in the stable 2.4 series. The
source code can be downloaded from ftp.gimp.org. Binary packages are
expected to become available over the next days.
Changes in GIMP 2.4.3
=
- avoid filename encoding problems in the WMF import plug-in (bug #
13 matches
Mail list logo
