Re: [Gimp-developer] Friends of GIMP
From: Dave Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] A couple of people asked this question - I thought I'd explained the idea pretty well, but I guess I missed the mark. Gone with the wind? How about changing the title of the list to retired GIMP coders? Then everyone would know what you really mean. Sooo... who would like to go through the list and ask if they would have time to work with GIMP? Ask their employers if they would sponsor GIMP project by allowing the people work on GIMP a few hours a week? Note the coders in the new title. The list excludes all those who have contributed great ideas to the list, but who have not coded. If you really look for volunteers, then here I am. Anyone coder would like to implement with me an alternative selection tool (as existing tool seems to be practically unusable)? For the start... Regards, Juhana ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Friends of GIMP
Hi, Juhana Sadeharju [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If you really look for volunteers, then here I am. Anyone coder would like to implement with me an alternative selection tool (as existing tool seems to be practically unusable)? GIMP has a bunch of selection tools and they seem to work quite well for a lot of people. I think I know what problems you are refering to but it would help the discussion if you could specify which selection tools you are talking about and how they could be improved. Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-web] Re: [Gimp-developer] Status of the New Site
On 30 Dec 2003, at 9:48, Raphaël Quinet wrote: Branko Collin: What I don't understand is why the new site doesn't just replace the old site on the old server? I think that the goal was to move to a better machine (better CPU and more memory). But for the details, you should probably ask Yosh. I think the goal was to have a new website. If you want to move to a better machine, you don't make a new website. -- branko collin [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Selection tools
On 30 Dec 2003 17:17:33 +0100, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Juhana Sadeharju [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Here is an alternative rectangle selection tool: [...] The point is that you misunderstood what a selection is. A selection is a mask holding a selection value between 0 and 255 for each pixel in the image. What you see on the GIMP canvas is just the selection border, a line draw along the pixels that are 50% selected. Now if you create a rectangular selection, you alter the selection mask so that it looks like a rectangle. The information about the corner points of the rectangle is not stored anywhere. That's why you cannot edit the selection the way you suggested. From my point of view, the fact that the information about the corner points of the rectangle is not stored anywhere is an internal implementation detail that most users should not have to care about. This is something that we could change later. For example, take a look at this enhancement proposal from jwz, and especially the comment from Simon: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=91934 The shape of the selection could remain editable until the user chooses to apply it. This would be even more useful for ellipses than for rectangles. And as Simon mentioned in his comment, this could even improve the usability of the selection tools for GIMP beginners. Anyway, as there is already a bug report about how to improve the selection tools, I suggest that Juhana takes a look at it. -Raphaël ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-web] Re: [Gimp-developer] Status of the New Site
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 17:18:11 +0100, Branko Collin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 30 Dec 2003, at 9:48, Raphaël Quinet wrote: I think that the goal was to move to a better machine (better CPU and more memory). But for the details, you should probably ask Yosh. I think the goal was to have a new website. If you want to move to a better machine, you don't make a new website. I suppose that Yosh thought that it was the right time to replace the old machine, which shows some signs of weakness from time to time. Anyway, I am just reporting what I read. Don't shoot the messenger. ;-) As I wrote above, ask Yosh for details. I don't own the machine (*) and I don't pay for the bandwidth, so I am already glad that we have something even if I am as frustrated as you are that the new web site has been waiting for the move since more than three months. -Raphaël (*) Note to Yosh or Shawn or whoever owns the new machine: I wouldn't mind donating something for the memory, disk or CPU if this could help setting up the new web site. (Yes, this is a serious offer.) ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-web] Re: [Gimp-developer] Status of the New Site
On 30 Dec 2003, at 21:47, Raphaël Quinet wrote: On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 17:18:11 +0100, Branko Collin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 30 Dec 2003, at 9:48, Raphaël Quinet wrote: I think that the goal was to move to a better machine (better CPU and more memory). But for the details, you should probably ask Yosh. I think the goal was to have a new website. If you want to move to a better machine, you don't make a new website. I suppose that Yosh thought that it was the right time to replace the old machine, which shows some signs of weakness from time to time. Anyway, I am just reporting what I read. Don't shoot the messenger. ;-) I am not shooting the messenger, but I also cannot help but notice that you have write access to the current webserver. Yosh reads at least one of these mailing lists, and has done so for the past three months. Barring a disaster, he has had enough time to tell us why things are taking so long. I vote we don't wait for a new server to come along, because flying pigs might bump into it, being disoriented from hell freezing over, and then we would need another new server. Please keep in mind that this is a volunteer effort. Yosh may have had many good reasons to stay silent, but he did not mention it, and his inactivity and silence should not be a reason to halt the work of an entire group of dedicated developers. It is not as if people dislike the new site; the only thing that remains is replacing the old site with it. -- branko collin [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-web] Re: [Gimp-developer] Status of the New Site
On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 11:58:33PM +0100, Branko Collin wrote: On 30 Dec 2003, at 21:47, Rapha?l Quinet wrote: On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 17:18:11 +0100, Branko Collin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 30 Dec 2003, at 9:48, Rapha?l Quinet wrote: I think that the goal was to move to a better machine (better CPU and more memory). But for the details, you should probably ask Yosh. I think the goal was to have a new website. If you want to move to a better machine, you don't make a new website. I suppose that Yosh thought that it was the right time to replace the old machine, which shows some signs of weakness from time to time. Anyway, I am just reporting what I read. Don't shoot the messenger. ;-) I am not shooting the messenger, but I also cannot help but notice that you have write access to the current webserver. Yosh reads at least one of these mailing lists, and has done so for the past three months. Barring a disaster, he has had enough time to tell us why things are taking so long. I vote we don't wait for a new server to come along, because flying pigs might bump into it, being disoriented from hell freezing over, and then we would need another new server. Please keep in mind that this is a volunteer effort. Yosh may have had many good reasons to stay silent, but he did not mention it, and his inactivity and silence should not be a reason to halt the work of an entire group of dedicated developers. The reason is simple. There is not enough disk on the old server to host the new site. I'm surprised nobody has taken the time to address some of the issues that were punted for later (lack of a good Basics tutorial comes to mind). Also, with 2.0 coming out somewhat soon, porting things to 2.0 would be a good idea. None of these things require the site to be moved over first. It is not as if people dislike the new site; the only thing that remains is replacing the old site with it. There are voices of dissent. Also the news stuff is still broken since the move away from SSI (which was a bad decision imo, SSI has a negligible server load and apache is really not that hard to set up) -Yosh ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-web] Re: [Gimp-developer] Status of the New Site
On 30 Dec 2003, at 15:14, Manish Singh wrote: On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 11:58:33PM +0100, Branko Collin wrote: I am not shooting the messenger, but I also cannot help but notice that you have write access to the current webserver. Yosh reads at least one of these mailing lists, and has done so for the past three months. Barring a disaster, he has had enough time to tell us why things are taking so long. I vote we don't wait for a new server to come along, because flying pigs might bump into it, being disoriented from hell freezing over, and then we would need another new server. Please keep in mind that this is a volunteer effort. Yosh may have had many good reasons to stay silent, but he did not mention it, and his inactivity and silence should not be a reason to halt the work of an entire group of dedicated developers. The reason is simple. There is not enough disk on the old server to host the new site. OK, now we're getting somewhere. Apparently you are one of the few in the know about the web server. What can be done to remedy the disk situation? I heard some story about a new server? How about putting a new disk in the existing server, would that be an option? Is there any way that someone who is not in the inner circle can help? Are you subscribed to the gimp-web mailing list, where the remainder of this discussion belongs? I'm surprised nobody has taken the time to address some of the issues that were punted for later (lack of a good Basics tutorial comes to mind). Well, I have not tackled them because I was quite insulted by all of my work going to waste. Also, with 2.0 coming out somewhat soon, porting things to 2.0 would be a good idea. None of these things require the site to be moved over first. That's true, but actually putting the site live would be the sort of token of appreciation that would actually spur me on to do something. It is not as if people dislike the new site; the only thing that remains is replacing the old site with it. There are voices of dissent. What do they say? Did they post bug reports? -- branko collin [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] a proposed solution to the need for more disk space
Hi Manish: On gimp-developer this week you remarked that disk space is a premium on one of the servers. Is a new/larger disk drive something that I can purchase with funds from the MacGIMP sales? I'm partial to western digital drives (the ones with with 8MB caches, not 2MB caches) and would like to volunteer to get one for you but that wouldn't do if you're running scsi or something else non-IDE. Anyway, if the MacGIMP project can provide assistance in the form of a hardware upgrade such as RAM or a larger/faster hard drive, just let me know where to ship it. Happy New Year, Mat Caughron MacGIMP.org sysadmin ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
