Hi,
On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 09:07 +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:
If you have a look at it now, be warned that there's a bug in the
pixel-surround routines which I introduced two days ago. I am aware of
the bug and I will either fix it over the next days or revert some
optimizations. So please
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 21:24:13 +0100, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 09:07 +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:
If you have a look at it now, be warned that there's a bug in the
pixel-surround routines which I introduced two days ago. I am aware of
the bug and I will
Hi,
On Thu, 2007-03-08 at 09:45 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have limitted time right now but I'll try to have a look in the next few
days, though I dont follow your logic.
If you have a look at it now, be warned that there's a bug in the
pixel-surround routines which I introduced two
On 3/8/07, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
If you rotate by exactly 90 degrees, this is always done with
INTERPOLATION_NONE, no matter what you select in the tool options.
Perhaps this is the culprit? An offset seems unavoidable if the
transformation is performed without
On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 11:54:25 +0100, David Gowers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/8/07, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
If you rotate by exactly 90 degrees, this is always done with
INTERPOLATION_NONE, no matter what you select in the tool options.
Perhaps this is the culprit? An
Hi,
If you rotate by exactly 90 degrees, this is always done with
INTERPOLATION_NONE, no matter what you select in the tool options.
Perhaps this is the culprit? An offset seems unavoidable if the
transformation is performed without interpolation. So perhaps all we
need to do is to remove this
