Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: Gimp 1.3.22
Tor Lillqvist writes: Then the build should be removed from gimp's line in CVSROOT/modules . Will this have some odd consequences, or can it be done right away? Anyone object? It might be that people will have to re-get gimp from CVS if build is removed from gimp's line in CVSROOT/modules. (At least, I remember that when it was added some years ago, that was necessary.) Is this a big deal? --tml ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] What makes the GIMP toolbox special?
On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 07:25:01PM +0100, Raphaël Quinet wrote: I am questioning this because I think that the fact that the toolbox is special is an artificial limitation that should go away in a future release in order to make the user interface more consistent and easier to use. Artificial limitations give the application some shape. A place that a user can stand and from which they can survey the rest of the application. Otherwise why doesn't the context menu in your text editor have an option to download QuickTime movies over UUCP and play them in the toolbar? Nick. ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] What makes the GIMP toolbox special?
Hi, Raphal Quinet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In most cases, a new user will have two GIMP windows that have more or less the same size: in the current docs, one of them is refered to as the toolbox and the other one is just a dock. Both of them have roughly the same importance: they control what happens to the image, and it is possible to move (almost) all dockable items freely between these windows. Both of them are managed in (almost) the same way. I don't agree. You are IMO simply putting it the wrong way. There's the toolbox that has the main menu and some other functions that are unique to the toolbox. Then there are docks. As a convenience, some of the dock functionality has been added to the toolbox. Note that the toolbox is not even a full-featured dock since it can't have an image menu. The toolbox is a special window and it is meant to be one. The fact that it can also swallow dockables is just a nice add-on, nothing more. For what reason do we want to call one of them the toolbox and treat it in a special way in the code and in the docs? Why couldn't we call any of the top-level control GIMP windows a toolbox or a dock, without having to care about how this window was created? If the list or grid of tools can be moved to any dock, wouldn't it be more appropriate to use the term toolbox for whatever window happens to contain the tool icons? But why should we make the tool buttons detachable? It would only lead to confusion and wouldn't add any extra value. So call me thick if you want (or just persistent), but I still do not see a good reason to have this artificial difference between the toolbox and the other docks. The argument from Simon about the minimal GIMP GUI seemed interesting at first, but on second thought it is not very good either: as the current toolbox window is also a dock containing several tabs, it is usually far from minimal. The default setup for the toolbox is just the tool buttons and the tool options docked to it. We allow the user to add more tabs here but it is certainly not what most people are using. Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] GIMP at GUADEC
Hi all, Following up from the mail last week discussing the date and location of GIMPCon, here's the state of play on the various possibilities discussed. 1) GUADEC: The GNOME crowd are delighted to have us, the guadec planning committee are very eager, and are now planning a graphics/multimedia stream for the conference. I am now on the guadec-planning mailing list, and if we go to guadec I'll be co-organising the graphics stream (I wonder why I asked for a volunteer to do this...). 2) Lyon: We have been in contact with the university, and are awaiting a response on what kind of facilities will be available, and what dates suit them. This is looking pretty promising too. The local LUG are prepared to help out and play host. 3) Dublin: Very little movement. 4) London: Idem. 5) Chemnitz: Idem. So the situation as it is is that we should decide pretty quickly where we want to have the conference. Does having it at GUADEC pose any problems for anyone? Personally I think this is the best option available to us, even if it will pose us some fundraising problems. For our part, it would be nice to see 2 or 3 papers presented by GIMP people, and the organisers have asked whether it would be possible to have GIMP demonstrations similar to the one that jimmac did last year. The papers could be quite in-depth and technical, given the nature of GUADEC, or could be more aimed towards users and have a tutorial feel to them. So - speak up. What do ye think? Are we going to GUADEC? Should I continue exploring Lyon in case it doesn't work out? Are there other possibilities? Cheers, Dave. -- David Neary, Lyon, France E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Default values for window management settings
Hi, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tino Schwarze) writes: However, it would be great, if the window manager's focus policy could be determined and the default changed acccordingly (since activate-on-focus will complicate things with a point-to-focus policy) Sure, but as far as I know there is no well-established and portable way of getting this piece of information. Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Default values for window management settings
Sven Neumann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: The question I'd like to bring up is what should be the default values for these. After quite some discussions I now propose the following: [...] (activate-on-focus yes) [...] Switching to activate-on-focus as the default setting seems to make sense given that most desktops seem to be using click-to-focus by default these days. We used to set this to yes for Win32 only but I'd like to avoid different default settings if possible. So, if you have a strong opinion against this change, please speak up now. I have a strong opinion on that, mainly because I put a lot of thought and discussion effort into the active-view idea when I proposed it. It basically boils down to: * (activate-on-focus yes) breaks in the focus-follows-mouse model, since the active view changes randomly when you just move your mouse across the Screen, containing multiple image views. * (activate-on-focus no) works for both models, While I agree that (activate-on-focus yes) works better for the click-to-focus model, we should avoid shipping a default with a broken behaviour on focus-follows-mouse models. Bye, Simon -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.home.unix-ag.org/simon/ ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Default values for window management settings
On Tuesday 25 November 2003 11:42, Tino Schwarze wrote: Although I have a strong opinion against click-to-focus, it's probably the most widely used default and expert users are used to changing this setting anyway, so the default makes sense. However, it would be great, if the window manager's focus policy could be determined and the default changed acccordingly (since activate-on-focus will complicate things with a point-to-focus policy) I had an Horrible Experience (tm) regarding this yesterday. I was making a title in Gimp 1.3.23, and was using 140pt font. Suddenly, by accident I flipped the mouse wheel over the unit listbox ..it changed from PT to IN hell came over on my desktop. before I could do much, the keyboard froze as the GIMP tried to allocate more memory than avaliable in the whole city - I managed to xkill the gimp, but the X server remained frozen. I had to remote login and kill the X process. Since this the whole issue is not strictly related to activate on focus, but on memory consumption by the Text plugin, Sven, do you think it would be feasible to put a warning on the font-size selectors, just as there are when one tries to create an image too large? Bye, Tino. -- regards, JS -- ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Default values for window management settings
Hi, Joao S. O. Bueno [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I had an Horrible Experience (tm) regarding this yesterday. I was making a title in Gimp 1.3.23, and was using 140pt font. Suddenly, by accident I flipped the mouse wheel over the unit listbox ..it changed from PT to IN hell came over on my desktop. before I could do much, the keyboard froze as the GIMP tried to allocate more memory than avaliable in the whole city - I managed to xkill the gimp, but the X server remained frozen. I had to remote login and kill the X process. Since this the whole issue is not strictly related to activate on focus, but on memory consumption by the Text plugin, Sven, do you think it would be feasible to put a warning on the font-size selectors, just as there are when one tries to create an image too large? This is completely unrelated to the discussion, so please keep it out of it. There's a bug report about it already and it will be taken care of before 2.0. Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] Re: Big fonts make X freeze. Bugs 85103, 118356. Was - Re: Default values for window management settings
Hi, Joao S. O. Bueno [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: However, you've read what I wrote. What I got was X freezing which seemed quite related to what is listed under 85103. Believe me, X11 didn't freeze. What you observed most probably was GIMp dying while it has the pointer grabbed. This looks like a frozen X server but it isn't. 122707 seems to be entirely unrelated to the crashing, and talks about a nice feature. It is very much related since it will limit the amount of memory allocated to render text. Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP at GUADEC
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 15:20:49 +0100, David Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So - speak up. What do ye think? Are we going to GUADEC? Should I continue exploring Lyon in case it doesn't work out? Are there other possibilities? For those who do not have all the information about GUADEC 5 already, let's just mention that it will be held June 28-30, 2004 at Agder University College in Kristiansand (Southern part of Norway). You can find the GUADEC press release with more details and a map on: http://2004.guadec.org/ As far as I am concerned, FOSDEM would have been the best choice for me (less than 100 km drive ;-)), followed by Lyon (nice weather, still easy to reach by car) and GUADEC (more difficult to reach by car, but then there is the advantage of having GUADEC). The other options seemed less interesting for me. But that is only my point of view. Obviously, someone living in a different part of the world would have very different ideas about what place is easier to reach. -Raphaël ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP at GUADEC
David Neary wrote: Hi all, Following up from the mail last week discussing the date and location of GIMPCon, here's the state of play on the various possibilities discussed. 1) GUADEC: The GNOME crowd are delighted to have us, the guadec planning committee are very eager, and are now planning a graphics/multimedia stream for the conference. I am now on the guadec-planning mailing list, and if we go to guadec I'll be co-organising the graphics stream (I wonder why I asked for a volunteer to do this...). cut So the situation as it is is that we should decide pretty quickly where we want to have the conference. Does having it at GUADEC pose any problems for anyone? Personally I think this is the best option available to us, even if it will pose us some fundraising problems. I like the GUADEC idea technically. From a personal, selfish, un-gimp-like, I want to see the world point of view, London, Lyon, and Dublin have been on my list of places to see for quite some time. However, I think GAUDEC, especially since they are excited to have us and are sound willing to accomadate our needs, is better for us as a project. I am not sure if there are going to be fund raising issues, per say. We are probably one of a relativly small set of projects going that don't have any regular funding, so I am willing to wager that the funding will be no more trouble for us that it is normally. Also, as far as volunteers go, obviously I am not the best person to be planning anything happening in Europe (at the very least my sleep schedule couldn't handle it). However, if you have anything you would like or can be delagated to me, please ask. For our part, it would be nice to see 2 or 3 papers presented by GIMP people, and the organisers have asked whether it would be possible to have GIMP demonstrations similar to the one that jimmac did last year. The papers could be quite in-depth and technical, given the nature of GUADEC, or could be more aimed towards users and have a tutorial feel to them. I should really give a presentation on Gegl there. This would encourage me to get off my ass and write technal white papers discussing the huge about of planning I feel I have put into gegl. This would be good for me, too, as writing down ideas always provides a good oppurtunity to improve on them. Also writing down ideas provides a good chance for people to critizie those ideas, which would also be good. So - speak up. What do ye think? Are we going to GUADEC? Should I continue exploring Lyon in case it doesn't work out? Are there other possibilities? What are your feelings here? Do you think there is a chance GAUDEC won't work out? -- Dan ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] What makes the GIMP toolbox special?
On 25 Nov 2003 14:07:12 +0100, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Raphaël Quinet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: For what reason do we want to call one of them the toolbox and treat it in a special way in the code and in the docs? Why couldn't we call any of the top-level control GIMP windows a toolbox or a dock, without having to care about how this window was created? If the list or grid of tools can be moved to any dock, wouldn't it be more appropriate to use the term toolbox for whatever window happens to contain the tool icons? But why should we make the tool buttons detachable? It would only lead to confusion and wouldn't add any extra value. I was talking about the list or grid of tools (the Tools dockable), not the current tool buttons. Currently, we have two ways to display the tool icons: either as buttons (as shown in the current toolbox), or as a dockable list or grid of tools. Although the latter should be improved to have the same features as the current buttons (tooltips), it is more flexible because the user can customize how the icons are displayed. In order to reduce the amount of partially redundant code, we could get rid of the current toolbox replace it by the dockable grid of tools. Then we would call this the toolbox and it could be moved to any dock. That's what I tried to explain two messages earlier, in my reply to your first comments. Sorry if that was not clear enough. So call me thick if you want (or just persistent), but I still do not see a good reason to have this artificial difference between the toolbox and the other docks. The argument from Simon about the minimal GIMP GUI seemed interesting at first, but on second thought it is not very good either: as the current toolbox window is also a dock containing several tabs, it is usually far from minimal. The default setup for the toolbox is just the tool buttons and the tool options docked to it. We allow the user to add more tabs here but it is certainly not what most people are using. I thought that minimal GIMP GUI was used in the sense of small, i.e. that it would not take too much space on the screen. Even with a default setup including a single tab, this doubles the amount of space that would otherwise be taken by the toolbox. Adding more tabs does not change the amount of space used, unless this is done by stacking another dock area below the existing one. That's why I wrote that ``a better minimal GIMP GUI would only show the toolbox (i.e., just the list or grid of tool icons) and maybe the menu, but not any of the other dockable items.'' Anyway, it looks like neither of us will manage to convince the other one that one user interface model is easier to understand and use than the other one (toolbox must be special or all docks must be equal). So I propose that we leave it at that for the moment and only revisit this issue if we get significant feedback about this. -Raphaël ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] gimp-help-2 status and suggestions
So, one step ahead to finish the gimp-help-2 move into the new source structure, which finishes the source tree move and add the frensh translation and content from Julien and Raymond. Before i type in my last cvs commit i want to verify one exception of my proposal: the image directory. I want to suggest, that we move the image directory containing all the png files into the html directory (where the generated html files are after a make) and leave the source images (*.XCF Files which are mostly screenshots) in the /src/images directory as suggested. That seems a bit more reasonable for me, because we're separating the image sources from the normal content screenshots. Additionally, we don't need to move them into the /html directory or wherever. Yeah, we're saving one move! So, if no one are against this suggestion, i'll check them in as i mentioned here. After that, i'll write a status mail of the actual sources. Greetings, -- Roman Joost www: http://www.romanofski.de email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Gimp-developer] Default values for window management settings
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 15:31:25 +0100, Simon Budig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sven Neumann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Switching to activate-on-focus as the default setting seems to make sense given that most desktops seem to be using click-to-focus by default these days. We used to set this to yes for Win32 only but I'd like to avoid different default settings if possible. * (activate-on-focus yes) breaks in the focus-follows-mouse model, since the active view changes randomly when you just move your mouse across the Screen, containing multiple image views. This is interesting... I use a WM with focus-follows-mouse, and I think that (activate-on-focus yes) is more useful than (activate-on-focus no), as long as I do not have too many image windows open. If I only have two or three image windows open and I want to do something in the layers dialog for each of them, I find that I can select the right image faster by just moving over it and then back to the layers dialog instead of having to click or type a key in the image window or select the right image from the drop-down list. This does not work so well when there are many images stacked on top of each other so I agree that this option cannot be used all the time for the focus-follows-mouse model, but I would not call this feature broken in all cases. * (activate-on-focus no) works for both models, It doesn't work so well for the click-to-focus model. Those who use this kind of WMs (this is the default on most platforms and almost the only choice on Windows) are used to cliking on the title bar of a window to activate it because clicking in the window itself could trigger some unwanted action. For those users, the option (activate-on-focus no) makes the GIMP appear to be broken because clicking on the title bar or window decoration does not work as in all other applications. As you know, we even got a bug report about this: bug #109527. So I think that the defaults proposed by Sven are appropriate for the majority of our users. I also think that it would be nicer to set these defaults according to what focus model is used by the current WM, but this is not easy to do. I have some ideas about how to do that (not in all cases, but in a way that would be good enough) and I hope to be able to integrate this improved installation step into GIMP 2.2. -Raphaël ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] Re: GIMP at GUADEC
On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 03:20:49PM +0100, David Neary wrote: Hi all, Following up from the mail last week discussing the date and location of GIMPCon, here's the state of play on the various possibilities discussed. I will only respond about the Lyon possibility: snip. 2) Lyon: We have been in contact with the university, and are awaiting a response on what kind of facilities will be available, and what dates suit them. This is looking pretty promising too. The local LUG are prepared to help out and play host. snip. If the GIMPCon stand in Lyon, there will be at least some rooms, with Internet access (ssh, web, mail, at least), via a switch/hub. Any laptop with a dhcp config could then be connected. The rent for the rooms and the lunch at 12:00 might be paid by some presentations made by one of us to the CPE's students. I still have to discuss this point though. Regards, DindinX -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Make it idiot proof and someone will make a better idiot. ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: GIMP at GUADEC
Hi, David Odin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The rent for the rooms and the lunch at 12:00 might be paid by some presentations made by one of us to the CPE's students. That sounds more like breakfast to me ... Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: GIMP at GUADEC
On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 09:18:11PM +0100, Sven Neumann wrote: Hi, David Odin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The rent for the rooms and the lunch at 12:00 might be paid by some presentations made by one of us to the CPE's students. That sounds more like breakfast to me ... It depends where you live. I personnaly take my breakfast at 7:30, a lunch at 12:00 and a diner at 20:00 :-). Cheers, DindinX -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do people in Australia call the rest of the world up over? ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP at GUADEC
Hi, Daniel Rogers wrote: I like the GUADEC idea technically. From a personal, selfish, un-gimp-like, I want to see the world point of view, London, Lyon, and Dublin have been on my list of places to see for quite some time. However, I think GAUDEC, especially since they are excited to have us and are sound willing to accomadate our needs, is better for us as a project. London's easy to get to, Dublin's nothing special, and why on earth would you want to come to Lyon before (say) Prague, Paris, Amsterdam, or half a dozen other cities around Europe? :) I am not sure if there are going to be fund raising issues, per say. We are probably one of a relativly small set of projects going that don't have any regular funding, so I am willing to wager that the funding will be no more trouble for us that it is normally. Given that GNOME is a GNU project, and in past years the FSF has been our biggest contributor for conferences, I can foresee problems. Also, as far as volunteers go, obviously I am not the best person to be planning anything happening in Europe (at the very least my sleep schedule couldn't handle it). However, if you have anything you would like or can be delagated to me, please ask. It would be really cool if you would be the money man - the man that we could have the checks made out to. And if you could muscle some of those Comdex contacts, and work US companies (particularly Hollywood, where we know teh GIMP is used a lot), that would be brilliant. I should really give a presentation on Gegl there. This would encourage me to get off my ass and write technal white papers discussing the huge about of planning I feel I have put into gegl. This would be good for me, too, as writing down ideas always provides a good oppurtunity to improve on them. Also writing down ideas provides a good chance for people to critizie those ideas, which would also be good. That's great to hear too. The official call for papers hasn't gone out yet, but the format in previous years has been 30 minute talks and 60 minute talks, people would like to see published proceedings this year, so perhaps a 60 minute presentation might be an idea to get a bit of meat on things? What are your feelings here? Do you think there is a chance GAUDEC won't work out? I think there is a chance that we might end up struggling to get everyone there financially. I also think there's a chance that some GIMP people might not like the connotation that GIMP is or might be a GNOME app. I also think that piggy-backing on a big developers conference is risky, in that the objective of the GimpCon would be to be 100% into the GIMP for a few days, and with GUADEC going on that might not be so easy. In other words, I can see why some people might prefer a smaller cosier event. I think that the way our organisation is now, that's asking a lot of a couple of people to organise. The benefits of a big event are that there is less infrastructure to work on from our point of view. So there are pros and cons :) Personally, I like GUADEC. Cheers, Dave. -- David Neary, Lyon, France E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: Gimp 1.3.22
On Tue, 2003-11-25 at 17:22, Tor Lillqvist wrote: Tor Lillqvist writes: Then the build should be removed from gimp's line in CVSROOT/modules . Will this have some odd consequences, or can it be done right away? Anyone object? It might be that people will have to re-get gimp from CVS if build is removed from gimp's line in CVSROOT/modules. (At least, I remember that when it was added some years ago, that was necessary.) Is this a big deal? You don't have to do that. In your local copy, you can just remove the build/ subdirectory and edit the gimp/CVS/Entries file and remove the line that says D/build///. There is no need to extract the whole tree again. [These CVS survival tips brought to you by somebody on a slow dial-up connection. :-) ] Cheers, Malcolm ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
