Re: [Gimp-developer] List of changes for the future 1.2.4 release
On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 09:45:19 -, Austin Donnelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [quoting Rockwalrus, who quoted Sven:] Saving .xcf on full filesystem hangs GIMP http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=101340 [...] Note that just checking write() or fwrite() return values may not be enough: some filesystems delay the error indictation until close() is called on the fd. So this bug may well be influenced by the filesystem GIMP is writing to at the time. Yes, this is very important! Checking only the return value of fwrite() and ignoring the return value of close() is a recipe for disaster. You should also bear in mind that some filesystems (even the good old ext2) may behave differently if quotas are enabled. I do most of my GIMP work over NFS, and many NFS filesystem checks are delayed until the call to close(). I also enable quotas for myself and all other users on most of the machines that I manage. So testing the return value of fwrite() and ignoring the close() would only shift the problem described in bug #101340: instead of locking the GIMP, the user would lose the image without getting any error message. I don't know which problem is worse... -Raphaël ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: alpha vs. transparency / translucency
On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 12:08:55PM +0100, Sven Neumann wrote: Side effect, will be RGBA be named RGBT everywhere (in user visible interface)? Is not a bit silly to start renaming basic concepts of a field with something else (aka causing differences with reference docs that existed long time ago)? Just wondering. the user shouldn't be confronted with the term RGBA at all. IIRC, this is the case unless she's writing a script or plug-in in which case she is not a user any longer but a developer. Maybe. But how do you say RGBA in less then five words without using the acronym? I think RGBA is one of the terms a Gimp user could learn. BTW, I'm not sure if someone already pointed out Transparency is the oposite of Alpha, so if we changed Alpha to Transparency, not only the word, but also the meaning would change (think about all the hscales, entries and curves). Yeti ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: alpha vs. transparency / translucency
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Guillermo S. Romero / Familia Romero wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (2002-12-18 at 1711.13 +0100): I agree with Alan and Raphaël (see the bug report) when it comes to the What/How statement. I can see how the term alpha may be unclear to new users, but I think it would be a pity to replace it all together, as this might cause users who are accustomed with the term to be confused. Another How: My image is RGB, how do I make it RGBA? :] Side effect, will be RGBA be named RGBT everywhere (in user visible interface)? Is not a bit silly to start renaming basic concepts of a field with something else (aka causing differences with reference docs that existed long time ago)? Just wondering. I agree - that it would be better to consistently use the more modern, technical term 'Alpha' - and provide some simple cues to new users that 'Alpha' and 'Transparency' are related. Technically, the meaning of 'Alpha' is completely the opposite of 'Transparency'. An Alpha of 1.0 (Lots of alpha) means 'opaque' and an Alpha of 0.0 (no alpha at all) means totally transparent. Hence, Lots of Transparency and Lots of Alpha have opposite meanings and the terms are NOT completely interchangeable. Perhaps in the couple of places in the higher levels of the GIMP menu where you can access alpha, it would be better to say 'Alpha (Transparency)' - so that newbies would come to understand that the terms are related. Having established that relationship in their minds, you can drop the '(Transparency)' part in deeper menus and dialogs. You could also add a 'Tip of The Day' that explains this. As an alternative, you could talk about 'Opacity' as a synonym for Alpha - but there are definitely contexts where that would be confusing too. Steve Baker (817)619-2657 (Vox/Vox-Mail) L3Com/Link Simulation Training (817)619-2466 (Fax) Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.link.com Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sjbaker.org ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: alpha vs. transparency / translucency
On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 10:04:10 -0600 (CST), Stephen J Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Guillermo S. Romero / Familia Romero wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (2002-12-18 at 1711.13 +0100): I agree with Alan and Raphaël (see the bug report) when it comes to the What/How statement. I can see how the term alpha may be unclear to new users, but I think it would be a pity to replace it all together, as this might cause users who are accustomed with the term to be confused. Another How: My image is RGB, how do I make it RGBA? :] I agree - that it would be better to consistently use the more modern, technical term 'Alpha' - and provide some simple cues to new users that 'Alpha' and 'Transparency' are related. That's why I think that the suggestion given in the bug report #89275 is the easiest way to solve this problem: keep alpha almost everywhere, but just rename the sub-menu Alpha to Transparency. So you would have Image-Image-Transparency-Add Alpha Channel. -Raphaël ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] New Gimp FAQ: Call for questions
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 12:19:28 -0800 (PST), Nathan Carl Summers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The gimp web team has desired that the current FAQ's be updated to reflect the current 1.2.x reality for some time. Sorry to rehash a topic that has already been mentioned a few days ago on the gimp-dev list, but what is the gimp web team and how do I get in touch with it? I haven't seen the FAQ topic being discussed on the gimp-web list (which would be the appropriate place for this). Also, I would be nice for me to know what is being planned, since I am the current maintainer for www.gimp.org and I have just updated some of the FAQ links on these pages (pointing to the GUG FAQs for the moment). Note that I will be away from the 'net for the next 10 days so it is a bit late for me to ask, but it would be nice if a bit more information was shared on the gimp-web mailing list. We have decided to do this in two parts. First, we will issue a Call for Questions. Please send in all questions you would like to have in the new Gimp User FAQ to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and CC them to the lists for discussion. I think that it would be nicer to have a list of questions that have already been asked than a list of questions that could be interesting but have never been asked in practice. The latter tends to duplicate the existing documentation. Anyway, I think that the first question in the list (or the second one, just after What is the GIMP?) should be Where can I get more information?. The FAQ will never be complete, so it is important to point to other sources of information (help pages, documentation, web sites) so that the user know where to find the answer to some questions that would not be in the FAQ. -Raphaël ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] Script-Fu - Batch Mode Problem
I had posted this earlier to the gimp-users listSomeone suggested that I may find an answer on this list. I am looking for an suggestion you can provide. Matt Patterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Hello, I am having an issue with a Script that I have written being called from the command line. Here is what I am trying to do. I have written a script using Scheme that runs great when I have Gimp loaded up (ie not from the command line). No problems, does everything that I want. The real point of the script is to automate some image resizing from the command line. I know that many of you out there are going to point out that ImageMagick will do what I am looking for. I have already gone down that path and the image quality of the scaled images is not up to the quality that client wants. However, I can make a better, smaller image using Gimpnow I just need to make it completely automated. here is the rub. I have the script streamlined down and everything is set to be non-interactive. So i should just be able to pass in the variables and away we go My thinking is obviously flawed here as it doesn't quite work. here is how I am calling the script: gimp -b '(script-fu-automated-resize 1 200 200 /export/home/matt/toprocess/Imagein.jpg /export/home/matt/toprocess/Imageout.jpg)' '(gimp-quit 0)' The script takes in a height, width, beginning image and output image. I pass it a 1 before all of that for non-interactive. The script is designed to open the beginning image, resize accordingly, and then save to the output image. I get the following response. batch command: executed successfully. One would think that I should be able to check my system and I should see the end imagenopenada...nothing. If I change the option of 1 to 0 to run in interactive mode...I get the prompt for the default values of the script. Height, Width, Image to processfinal image. If I enter those in, click the ok buttonit runs like a champ. What am I missing? I have the non-interactive bit set on the file open which I assume is what is causing this dialog to pop up. Any ideas? tips? Pointer? References? Anyone already have a thumbnail script that works in this way that can shed some light on the subject? Matt Patterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- end forwarded message -- ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu - Batch Mode Problem
On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 10:57:19PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have already gone down that path and the image quality of the scaled images is not up to the quality that client wants. However, I can make a better, smaller image using Gimpnow I just need to make it completely automated. If you can't make an image in ImageMagick that is at least as good as what you get from The GIMP, you're doing something wrong. Have you tried specifying what kind of filter you want to use? /* Steinar */ -- Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/ ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] Script to get a list of GIMP contributorsautomatically
A few days ago, there was a discussion about how to get a fair list of GIMP contributors. I thought that it would be extremely difficult to generate such a list automatically from the various ChangeLog files in the source tree, from Bugzilla, from the web site updates, etc. To prove myself wrong, I started writing a script that can parse a ChangeLog file and extract the dates, names and e-mail addresses from all entries, check for the names of contributors mentioned in the text, check for the names of patch files, etc. The script is far from finished, but it already works better than I expected. If you are curious and you want to see a quick hack turned into a Perl monstrosity, you can take a look at this: http://www.gimp.org/~raphael/parse_gimp_changelogs.pl Currently, the script takes only one optional parameter: the name of the ChangeLog file to read (so you can parse ChangeLog.pre-1-2 or po/ChangeLog), the default is ChangeLog in the current directory. The output is not very pretty, but gives an idea of what the script could output when it is finished: it displays a list of GIMP contributors, sorted by the number of times they are mentioned in the ChangeLog. The current output is biased towards those who have CVS commit access, because they are credited even when they apply a patch supplied by someone else. Also, the way the script detects the names is not perfect and requires lots of special cases in the code. But I am trying to improve that. I know how to solve these problems (I designed the parser in such a way that I can correctly credit the patch authors) but I do not have the time to write the missing code today. There is a short TODO list near the top of the file. If you want to see what kind of information is collected by the script while it runs, you can uncomment the various print statements in the code. I recommend that you uncomment the line: # print Dumper (@contributors); located near the end of the file if you want to see how the list looks like internally (this is a list of hashes of lists). I repeat: the script is not finished yet and I am still working on it. I am making it available now because I will be away from the 'net for ten days (no e-mail) and maybe some of you may want to play with it before I am back. In the meantime, have a merry Christmas and a very GIMPy new year! -Raphaël ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu - Batch Mode Problem
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 23:15:42 - (GMT), Steinar H. Gunderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you can't make an image in ImageMagick that is at least as good as what you get from The GIMP, you're doing something wrong. Have you tried specifying what kind of filter you want to use? /* Steinar */ That's what I thought as well...but the scaling with imagemagick was causing pixelation. granted, it wasn't a lot of pixelation but the client that I am doing this for is having a problem with it. I tried specifying filters, scaled it every which way I could find documentation for on the imagemagick site. And I could get a good image, but not to the satisfaction of the customer. It appeared to be the way in which imagemagick scales the image as opposed to gimp. Gimp seems to handle it better. I would think it would be pretty much a wash but based on what i have coded up so farit's not the case. At least not for the client who is really really picky about the pixelation. Matt Patterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu - Batch Mode Problem
On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 11:29:08PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's what I thought as well...but the scaling with imagemagick was causing pixelation. Scaling up or down? With which filter? (You're sure you resampled and not did a simple quick rescale, right?) /* Steinar */ -- Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/ ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] Re: Rapha?l's questions about web team (was FAQ)
On 2002-12-19 at 1759.28 +0100, Rapha?l Quinet typed this: On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 12:19:28 -0800 (PST), Nathan Carl Summers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The gimp web team has desired that the current FAQ's be updated to reflect the current 1.2.x reality for some time. Sorry to rehash a topic that has already been mentioned a few days ago on the gimp-dev list, but what is the gimp web team and how do I get in touch with it? I haven't seen the FAQ topic being discussed on the gimp-web list (which would be the appropriate place for this). well, i want a working news and contest before i have an official team and any sort of official announcement of the new site (which is at http://mmmaybe.gimp.org now btw) i need to get that eh, wiki off the front and the nifty news and contest i have seen and operated already to be there instead. should be soon. wish i could show some photos of the semi truck accident that has slowed things down some here. contact me if you have ideas, wait for official announcements to fix typos and things. sorry it isn't as organized as it should be. Rapha?l, any more questions? sorry it is going like this. i dunno any other way though. ;) carol ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] New Gimp FAQ: Call for questions
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 01:14:01PM +1100, Tim Lambert wrote: Stephen J Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My #1 FAQ from people where I work is: Q: I'm trying to paint and nothing is happening - what did I do wrong? Yeah, me too. How hard do you think it would be to have a 'novice mode' where gimp detects this and pops up a tip on how to fix things? And we could also add an obtrusive animated paperclip (or paintbrush) giving users funny advices... But seriously, there's a zillion things user can do wrong, if he/she is clueless, and when you finally find them all, the first user you test your novice mode on will find a new one. IMHO novice mode (if ever implemented) should restrict the things user can do to some sane set (simplifying the interface), and not try to turn the Gimp into Eliza Regards, Yeti ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-Fu - Batch Mode Problem
On 20-Dec-2002, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 11:29:08PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's what I thought as well...but the scaling with imagemagick was causing pixelation. Scaling up or down? With which filter? (You're sure you resampled and not did a simple quick rescale, right?) If your're scaling down in gimp, go into preferences, and change scaling mode to linear. Cubic sucks for scaling down, and Im not sure why Gimp even allows users to make a choice (bicubic and such are always used for scaling up, bilinear and such are always used for scaling down.) -- Patrick Diablo-D3 McFarland || [EMAIL PROTECTED] Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music. -- Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, Inc, 1989 msg03313/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
[Gimp-developer] ANNOUNCE: libpdb suite 0.2.0
Libpdb suite 0.2.0 has been released. This is mostly a code cleanup release. Changes include: * Renamed WireStandardProtocol WireStdProtocol. Hopefully this will save some typing. Similarly, WireStandardProtocolMessage is WireStdProtocolMsg. * The read and write functions in WireStdProtocol now take a single value instead of an array. The old functionality is still available with new functions that have a _v suffix. * WireStdProtocol now provides signed and unsigned version of the read and write functions. * Parameters can now be marked as required or optional. This currently serves no purpose, but when keyword calling is supported, optional parameters will be supplied with default values if not specified. * GError is used to report errors in libwire. * libwire is now (almost) completely documented. * i18n now works. A Spanish translation is provided. Many exciting new features are planned for 0.3! Check out the TODO list for details. Downloads are available at http://www.gimp.org/~rock/libpdb. A libpdb mailing list is now available at libpdb-developer-at-lists.xcf.berkely.edu. Libpdb can also be obtained from gnome cvs by checking out the libpdb module. Rockwalrus ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
RE: [Gimp-developer] List of changes for the future 1.2.4 release
Saving .xcf on full filesystem hangs GIMP http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=101340 doesn't seem overly complicated since there's only one call to fwrite() in app/xcf.c which needs to have its return_value to be checked. The larger part of the problem is to propate the error up from xcf_write_int8(). Note that just checking write() or fwrite() return values may not be enough: some filesystems delay the error indictation until close() is called on the fd. So this bug may well be influenced by the filesystem GIMP is writing to at the time. Just a detail to bear in mind... Austin ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
