Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: Gimp 1.3.22

2003-11-25 Thread Tor Lillqvist
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?

2003-11-25 Thread Raphaël Quinet
On 24 Nov 2003 20:17:52 +0100, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Raphaël Quinet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  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.
 
 This discussion is about proper defaults for GIMP-2.0, not some future
 plans.

I started this discussion without mentioning 2.0 and thinking more
about where we want to go in the future.  This may of course have some
influence on 2.0 (i.e., it may be better to set a normal WM hint on
all docks as mentioned in bug #115092) but I was more interested in
what are our goals for the user interface? than in what is the next
step towards that goal? because the former influences the latter.

[...]
  Wouldn't this be easier to understand and work with?  The user simply
  has a number of control windows in which several dockable items can be
  organized in any way they want.  And none of them is more special
  than the others.
 
 I seriously doubt that this would make it easier for the user. In my
 opinion it only adds an completely unneeded level of configurability
 and thus complexity.

This is something that we can probably not decide ourselves.
Everybody on this list is a developer or at least an experienced GIMP
user, influenced by the history of the GIMP.  The best way to check
what is best for the user interface would be to ask some new users,
especially those who have never used a previous version of the GIMP
such as 1.2.x.  Or maybe we could involve the GNOME usability people?

 The GIMP should have a common window that
 everyone (and the docs) can refer to as the toolbox. I don't see any
 good reason of changing this.

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.

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?  I think that the documentation would be
simpler and the user interface would be easier to use if we could just
say drop this URL on any GIMP dock to open the image or if we could
refer to the toolbox as the area that contains the tools and is hosted
in any of the GIMP docks without having to associate it automatically
with the presence of the main menu and the (obsolete) indicators.

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.  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.  So we would be back to the same argument: all
docks could be treated in the same way.  The user would simply have
one or several top-level GIMP windows (docks) in which she can
organize various controls acting on the image windows.

-Raphaël
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer


Re: [Gimp-developer] What makes the GIMP toolbox special?

2003-11-25 Thread Nick Lamb
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?

2003-11-25 Thread Sven Neumann
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


Re: [Gimp-developer] Default values for window management settings

2003-11-25 Thread Tino Schwarze
On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 01:33:15PM +0100, Sven Neumann 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:
 
  (toolbox¡¾window¡¾type normal)
  (dock¡¾window¡¾type normal)
  (activate¡¾on¡¾focus yes)
 
 This means that we wouldn't set the utility window type hint any
 longer (at least not by default). It was causing a lot of confusion
 and whoever liked the special treatment that some window managers give
 these windows can easily change this in the preferences dialog.
 
 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.

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)

Bye, Tino.

-- 
 * LINUX - Where do you want to be tomorrow? *
  http://www.tu-chemnitz.de/linux/tag/
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer


[Gimp-developer] bug triage for 2.0

2003-11-25 Thread David Neary
Hi all,

As those of you who follow bugzilla may have noticed, I have
started attacking bugs on the 2.0 milestone. It is now clear that
not all of these will be fixed before 2.0. We will need to
re-distribute the ones that will not be fixed among other
milestones, or close them.

As rough guidelines, anything that we hope to fix before 2.0
should stay on the 2.0 milestone. We should prioritise these, so
that when we want to release, they can be moved to the 2.0.1
milestone (reserved for things that really need fixing, but which
aren't going to be fixed for 2.0). 

Bugs which are important to fix should be addressed early in the
unstable release cycle, and should therefore be added to the 2.2
milestone. We will probably add milestones when we start on a 2.1
branch to further carve up these bugs. 

Anything which is a feature request and doesn't have an
identifiable owner should go to Future. I've thought about this, 
and there is a certain logic. Either the feature has an owner we
can hassel to do the feature, or no-one wants to do it. In that
case, there's no point adding it to a milestone closer than
Future, because it won't be done. When someone claims a feature
request and says they'll do it, it can then be added to a more
reasonable milestone.

Any bug against 1.0.x should be closed WONTFIX. 1.0.x is ancient
history.

Any bug which has been in NEEDINFO for longer than 6 months
should be closed INCOMPLETE. The original author can then re-open
it if he considers the bug is still valid and he wants to add
more info.

Any bug which has not had a comment added for over a year should
be bumped to 2.2, and have a comment added asking what the status
is. If, in 6 months time, there are still no further comments,
the bug can be closed WONTFIX.

We are still working towards a 2.0 release before Christmas.
Looking at CVS, we are not that far away from it. I feel that the
pre-release cycle will throw up some surprises and that we will
have trouble getting to 2.0 that early, but that's another
matter.

There are now under 100 bugs on the 2.0 and 1.3.x milestones. I
would like to see that reduced to around 40, and I would also
like to see more than 3 or 4 people closing bugs. To get a 2.0
release soon will be a huge job, and Sven and mitch cannot carry
on doing all the bug fixing. If you have any free time at all,
please pick a bug and help out.

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


[Gimp-developer] GIMP at GUADEC

2003-11-25 Thread David Neary
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

2003-11-25 Thread Sven Neumann
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

2003-11-25 Thread Simon Budig
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

2003-11-25 Thread Joao S. O. Bueno
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

2003-11-25 Thread Sven Neumann
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


Re: [Gimp-developer] Default values for window management settings

2003-11-25 Thread Sven Neumann
Hi,

Henrik Brix Andersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 On Tue, 2003-11-25 at 15:50, Joao S. O. Bueno wrote:
  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.
 
 I believe this is a known issue:
 http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=85103

No, that is the wrong bug number. The related bug is #118356 as well
as #122707. The bug you mentioned here doesn't affect GIMP-1.3 at all
and I just changed the milestone accordingly.


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

2003-11-25 Thread Sven Neumann
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

2003-11-25 Thread Raphaël Quinet
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

2003-11-25 Thread Daniel Rogers
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?

2003-11-25 Thread Raphaël Quinet
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

2003-11-25 Thread Roman Joost
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

2003-11-25 Thread Raphaël Quinet
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

2003-11-25 Thread David Odin
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

2003-11-25 Thread Sven Neumann
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

2003-11-25 Thread David Odin
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

2003-11-25 Thread David Neary
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


[Gimp-developer] Re: GIMP at GUADEC

2003-11-25 Thread David Neary
Hi David,

David Odin wrote:
   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.

This is great news, I haven't yet gotten an answer from the CPE
person I mailed over the weekend, but it's good to see that plans
have moved along. 

Given that GUADEC is the end of June, and at least a few GIMP
people will be going to that, I suggest that we should look at
dates in mid to late July for Lyon. Hopefully by the end of the
week we will manage to have a proposition that we can discuss
from Lyon, as well as more information from Norway.

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] GIMP at GUADEC

2003-11-25 Thread Daniel Rogers
David Neary wrote:

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? :)
Who says those are not on my list? :-P

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.
Ahh, but my point is that the FSF doesn't need to support these groups.
 They have their own corporate support.  But this is moot.  The only
real choice is to start asking for support and seeing what happens.

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.
Sure sure sure.  I already volunteered to be the money person so that is
good.  I checked with the lawyer today and it seems that she would be
ready to give me all the information I need to fill the paperwork to
start The Gimp Foundation out myself after Thanksgiving.
If I ask her help in filling out the paperwork it could potentially take
much longer, so I will likely fill it out myself.  The Gimp Foundation
should exist soon.
As far as sniffing around Hollywood goes that is really Robin Rowe's
territory IMO.  I had a conversation with him recently, trying to
encourage our projects to work together, and because I didn't understand
where he was comming from, and because it was email, I ended up sounding 
arrogant and condesending (it just became an argument, really).  At this 
point, I simply don't want to step on his toes.

I am also deeply concerned about what several sections of the movie
industry think about open source and the GIMP in particular.  If it is
anything like what Robin Rowe thinks we are, then I will likely just be
laughed at for having the nerve to knock on their door.  I
am afriad that if I try and go to hollywood without a good technical
incentive and a convincing argument as to why they should support the
gimp, I will do more harm that good for our relations by reinforcing
whatever negative opinion they have about us.
This is really all just speculation based on two or three points of
reference I have into that industry.  If I actually knew someone in
Hollywood that supported the gimp (or anyone in Hollywood, really), an
insider, as it were, there I would feel like I have a safe place to step
into that arena.
I am waiting until we have color management, high bit depths, an awesome
compositing engine, and a frame manager before really trying anything
over there. This would give me convincing technical achievements with
which to approach Hollywood.  All but the last is being worked on, while
the last is not technically challenging.
If anyone thinks I am being too cautious, please speak up.

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?
Hmm, better get started on that then.  I think I could fill 60 minutes
with details about our compositing engine, color management, and some
exciting far-future ideas.  How will I know when the call for papers starts?

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 

Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: Gimp 1.3.22

2003-11-25 Thread Malcolm Tredinnick
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