Hi,
On Sat, 2004-05-08 at 01:49, Sven Neumann wrote:
Simon Budig [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What about a component installers or binary packages where we
can put the bugs that are related to a certain gimp distribution?
If the maintainers of the installers or binary packages agree to
Hi,
On Fri, 2004-05-07 at 17:50, Sven Neumann wrote:
Because we can't do anything about the bugs. Nobody but the packager
can. The situation would be different if the tools used to build the
binary packages would be in GNOME CVS. That would certainly qualify
the project for also using the bug
Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 2004-05-07 at 17:50, Sven Neumann wrote:
Because we can't do anything about the bugs. Nobody but the packager
can. The situation would be different if the tools used to build the
binary packages would be in GNOME CVS. That would certainly qualify
the
On Thu, 2004-05-06 at 21:06 -0700, Nathan Carl Summers wrote:
I took a look at the new image dialogs on the list today, and I made a few
improvements. I've posted them at
http://wilber.gimp.org/~rock/NewDialogSimple.png and
http://wilber.gimp.org/~rock/NewDialogExpanded.png
To only give you
On 8 May 2004, at 19:51, Jakub Steiner wrote:
On Thu, 2004-05-06 at 21:06 -0700, Nathan Carl Summers wrote:
I took a look at the new image dialogs on the list today, and I made
a few improvements. I've posted them at
http://wilber.gimp.org/~rock/NewDialogSimple.png and
Would like to better understand the development approach the GIMP has used
over the years to segregate code in the main app from code in libgimp. Seem
to recall seeing some app code that had moved into libgimp, but am not sure.
Do GIMP maintainers later refactor code?
Does code in app ever get
