Hi,
If this is an almost-concensus (only myself, Alan Horkan and
Raphael seem to like the change), it seems reasonable to revert
the redo shortcut to Ctrl-R.
Cheers,
Dave.
Tom Mraz wrote:
FYI (multiple keybindings per menu action in GTK+).
As I see it will be implemented in GTK+ 2.4 I vote
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 08:34:25 +0200, David Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If this is an almost-concensus (only myself, Alan Horkan and
Raphael seem to like the change), it seems reasonable to revert
the redo shortcut to Ctrl-R.
Please don't. If you replace the current Ctrl-Shift-Z by something
Raphaël Quinet ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 08:34:25 +0200, David Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If this is an almost-concensus (only myself, Alan Horkan and
Raphael seem to like the change), it seems reasonable to revert
the redo shortcut to Ctrl-R.
Please don't. If
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 12:25:49PM +0200, Sven Neumann wrote:
Hi,
I wonder when and why the terminology of hardcoding a keybinding was
introduced into this discussion. I simply don't understand it's
meaning. If you think about having two different keybindings bound to
a single menu entry,
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 11:03:02AM +0200, Simon Budig wrote:
If this is an almost-concensus (only myself, Alan Horkan and
Raphael seem to like the change), it seems reasonable to revert
the redo shortcut to Ctrl-R.
Please don't. If you replace the current Ctrl-Shift-Z by something
Hi,
Raphal Quinet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 08:34:25 +0200, David Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If this is an almost-concensus (only myself, Alan Horkan and
Raphael seem to like the change), it seems reasonable to revert
the redo shortcut to Ctrl-R.
Please don't.
Hi,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tino Schwarze) writes:
I would not change the shortcut if it will be changed with GTK 2.4
anyway. Just stick with CTRL-R. This way, we can later provide an
alternative more sane extra shortcut using GTK 2.4.
I don't think we ever want a second shortcut for anything. We
Raphaël Quinet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
According to the roadmap proposed a few weeks ago, we should be in
feature freeze and we should have released 2.0rc1 by now. Also, the
old web site was supposed to be replaced by the new one in order to be
prepared to support the new release.
None
Hi,
Sven Neumann wrote:
Raphaël Quinet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
try to replace it by something that is used by some other
applications, such as Ctrl-Y. Do not bring back the old Ctrl-R.
Unless Ctrl-Y collides with another suggested shortcut in the HIG, it
seems like a reasonable choice
Will you excuse me...but ..what CTRL-Y has to with REDO alltogether?
CTRL + R - R is the first letter in REDO.
SHIFT + CTRl + Z - Shift acts as amodifier to the CTRL + Z UNDO.
CTRl + X - Stays next to Z and allows for fat toggling as has been
argued.
But...
CTRL-Y? Why not just stick with
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 09:19:11 -0300, Joao S. O. Bueno [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Will you excuse me...but ..what CTRL-Y has to with REDO alltogether?
For better or worse, Ctrl-Y is the most frequently used shortcut for
Redo.
CTRL-Y? Why not just stick with CTRL+R? Maybe to pick the worst of both
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 12:32:28 +0200, Michael Natterer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raphaël Quinet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
we are planning for
1.3.21 soon (not ready for 2.0rc1 yet)
We cannot make a 2.0 release candidate until libgimp is API frozen.
Apart from that, current CVS is more stable
Hi,
Raphal Quinet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ctrl-Y is the shortcut used by most Windows applications (except for
Photoshop and Paint Shop Pro, using Ctrl-Shift-Z and Ctrl-Alt-Z)
As far as I understood, Photoshop uses Ctrl-Z for redo. Actually a
redo in PS is just an undo of the previous undo
Michael Natterer wrote:
I totally agree and still wonder why we still have that old website.
While we have good reasons to delay 2.0 release candidates, I fail
to see a single reason for further web site moving delays.
I never use gimp-1.2 anymore. Consider the lack of good reasons to move
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 12:24:12 -0400, Carol Spears [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael Natterer wrote:
I totally agree and still wonder why we still have that old website.
While we have good reasons to delay 2.0 release candidates, I fail
to see a single reason for further web site moving
On Mon, 2003-09-29 at 14:42, Sven Neumann wrote:
Hi,
Perhaps you want to contribute a short porting guide. Such a document
should be included with the 1.3 API reference. Let me know if you are
interested, I can give you a template that we can include in
devel-docs/libgimp later.
Now that
16 matches
Mail list logo
