It did kindof look that way. And I wasn't meaning to be offensive
(certainly I don't support the kind of public attack that other guy is
doing) so I guess I was giving unwanted advice; sorry about that.
Good luck on the task list and getting things done for 2.6.
Joe
Sven Neumann wrote:
Hi,
You and Sven make some very goods points, however dismissing the
suggestions of professional users out of hand is a fairly bad idea,
imho. Saying we cannot accept any new ideas until the existing ones
are done is ok, but just dismissing them out of hand might deny you
future access to their
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 08:47:40 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I find it rather arrogant to presume that those who can code are the only
ones who can contribute to development and as a consequence anyone who can
code is also an authority on graphic design and UI implementation.
You are
Hi,
On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 08:47 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I find it rather arrogant to presume that those who can code are the only
ones who can contribute to development and as a consequence anyone who can
code is also an authority on graphic design and UI implementation.
I have
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 15:37:05 +0100, Guillermo Espertino
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sven Nwumann wrote:
Nice to remind us of some issues but we are not going to put user wishes
on our roadmap. It is rather distracting to post user wishes to the
developer list. People here should be aware of
On Nov 13, 2007 6:16 AM, Henk Boom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/11/2007, peter sikking [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- GEGL vs. vector, where is the dividing line when in the
future with GEGL everything added to the image remains
modifiable and removable?
I'm not sure what the
On 10/11/2007, William Skaggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One of the things that GIMP badly needs is a vectorial tool for
drawing lines and arrows. This also would make sense as a first
usable implementation of vector layers.
Here is how I think it could be structured:
Have you taken a look at
On 09/11/2007, Alexandre Prokoudine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Layers
- vector layers (Henk Boom?)
I would be glad to continue work on this if there are possibilities of
it getting into the main branch in the near future. The only issue is
that I would only be available to develop this starting
Hi,
On Mon, 2007-11-12 at 08:29 -0500, Henk Boom wrote:
- vector layers (Henk Boom?)
I would be glad to continue work on this if there are possibilities of
it getting into the main branch in the near future. The only issue is
that I would only be available to develop this starting either
Sven Neumann wrote:
On Mon, 2007-11-12 at 08:29 -0500, Henk Boom wrote:
- vector layers (Henk Boom?)
I would be glad to continue work on this
Before we add this, we should get some feedback from the UI team.
Well, this topic is not so clear cut. There are many factors:
- the relationship
From: peter sikking [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, this topic is not so clear cut. There are many factors:
- the relationship with vector apps, especially inkscape.
we saw during the user scenario weekend that live update
of linked-in svgs as they are saved by inkscape would fit
a symbiosis
On 12/11/2007, peter sikking [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, this topic is not so clear cut. There are many factors:
- the relationship with vector apps, especially inkscape.
we saw during the user scenario weekend that live update
of linked-in svgs as they are saved by inkscape would
Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
Here is the list of proposed changes in 2.6 that Sven asked for:
Tools
- full use of cairo for the select/crop tools (?)
- color-neutral toolbox icons that are quick to recognise and work
with (?)
The ? character after a name means that exact intentions of
One of the things that GIMP badly needs is a vectorial tool for
drawing lines and arrows. This also would make sense as a first
usable implementation of vector layers.
Here is how I think it could be structured:
1) For UI, there should be a GimpLineTool interface, modeled after
As GIMP moves toward vector layers and layer groups, it will more and
more need a capability for vector selection -- that is, for the
kind of selection capability found in vector graphics programs like
Inkscape, whose target is a set of objects rather than a spatial
region -- a vector selection
Hi,
I am afraid it is a little late to still suggest features to be put on
the roadmap. There was a deadline for the submission process last week
already and we only stretched it a little because we were waiting for
Mitch to submit the GEGL proposal.
We want to get 2.6 done in about six months,
Hi,
On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 10:34 -0800, William Skaggs wrote:
As GIMP moves toward vector layers and layer groups
I don't see GIMP moving towards vector layers, at least not for 2.6.
Layer groups are also not on the near-term roadmap. Perhaps we can
target them for 2.8 but that remains to be
From: Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I don't see GIMP moving towards vector layers, at least not for 2.6.
Layer groups are also not on the near-term roadmap. Perhaps we can
target them for 2.8 but that remains to be seen.
Oh well, consider my suggestions as early contributions to the
2.8
On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 04:03:51 +, Karl Günter Wünsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So you suggest that the GIMP is changing the orientation tag when it is
loading the image.
This is mandatory according to the EXIF specification. A program that
supports EXIF and wants to display the image
Von: Raphaël Quinet [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is mandatory according to the EXIF specification.
Just as a side note: it's Exif, not EXIF.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchangeable_image_file_format
Not really important for the discussion, but I do suggest that we do it right
from the
On Friday 09 November 2007, Raphaël Quinet wrote:
No, that's wrong. And that's one of the reasons why I want to remove
this confusing question. The EXIF standard defines precisely the list of
tags that must be updated and the list of tags that must be copied
unchanged. Unfortunately, older
Hey all,
GIMP 2.6 will include some bits of GEGL, not the full-blown package
with GEGL everywhere, but some selected spots that are easy to handle
and unlikely to break anything in the planned short development cycle.
The tentative plan is pretty simple:
* write adapter/proxy functions/objects
Hi,
Here is the list of proposed changes in 2.6 that Sven asked for:
Tools
- IWarp as tool (Tor)
- finishing rectangle tools (Enselic)
- full use of cairo for the select/crop tools (?)
- add support for color jitter in the paint tools (Adrian Likins)
- paint tools should support smudging as
On Thursday 08 November 2007, Raphaël Quinet wrote:
The problem is that the question is not interpreted correctly by most
users, as can be seen by the other replies mentioning camera sensors that
sometimes report the wrong orientation. It does NOT mean: allow me to
decide if each image should
From: Karl Günter Wünsch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EXIF in an edited image has little resemblance with the original anyway, so I
would suggest stripping that except for the IPTC tags. I would also be happy
if the IPTC tags were settable in the GIMP, instead of having to resort to
other programs.
Hi,
On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 12:42 -0300, Guillermo Espertino wrote:
Roadmap will be closed by the end of this week, so I'd like to make a
summary of the main issues I'd like to see fixed for 2.6
Nice to remind us of some issues but we are not going to put user wishes
on our roadmap. It is
Sven Nwumann wrote:
Nice to remind us of some issues but we are not going to put user wishes
on our roadmap. It is rather distracting to post user wishes to the
developer list. People here should be aware of the shortcomings and
without being a developer, your opinion is just one of many
Hi,
On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 11:37 -0300, Guillermo Espertino wrote:
What I suggested are not my wishes. I'm a professional designer and
GIMP is a tool for my work. The things that I wrote are issues that make
my work more difficult, while they shouldn't.
We are way past this point. The
Roadmap will be closed by the end of this week, so I'd like to make a
summary of the main issues I'd like to see fixed for 2.6
Since I'm not a coder, I just can give my user pov, so I'll try to be
realistic and don't ask for too radical things, just changes to improve
the existing tools. Please
Hi,
On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 23:55 +0100, Raphaël Quinet wrote:
* jpeg plug-in
+ remove the prompt for EXIF orientation: it should always be done
IMO the current solution of asking and allowing the user to skip this
question is preferred. It requires a user decision once, but at least it
On Sunday 04 November 2007, Sven Neumann wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 23:55 +0100, Raphaël Quinet wrote:
* jpeg plug-in
+ remove the prompt for EXIF orientation: it should always be done
IMO the current solution of asking and allowing the user to skip this
question is preferred. It
On Sunday, November 4, 2007, 11:09:22, Sven Neumann wrote:
The only problem is that it is rather difficult to discover how to
change that decision later. Currently you need to edit parasiterc. We
might want to find a solution for these Don't ask me again questions
that can be used from all
Sven Neumann writes:
On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 23:55 +0100, Raphaël Quinet wrote:
* jpeg plug-in
+ remove the prompt for EXIF orientation: it should always be done
IMO the current solution of asking and allowing the user to skip this
question is preferred. It requires a user decision
Currently, GIMP tries to do a bit of both in the same jpeg plug-in and
does not do either of them correctly:
Raphael: These subjects were discussed before in the list when I ranted
about almost the same.
Since that some changes were made in the jpeg plug-in for GIMP 2.4.0 and
imo they covered
Here is my contribution to the GIMP 2.6 roadmap: a description of the
remaining tasks related to the metadata viewer/editor and some
enhancements for the jpeg plug-in (and other plug-ins).
In the following list, the tasks marked with a + are the ones that I
would like to include in 2.6, while the
On Friday 02 November 2007, Raphaël Quinet wrote:
There are also some improvements for the JPEG plug-in. As I mentioned
some time ago, I would like to hide the current quality slider among
the advanced options, and replace it by a smaller selection of
pre-defined quality levels.
Sorry to
On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 00:06:18 +0100, Karl Günter Wünsch
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 02 November 2007, Raphaël Quinet wrote:
There are also some improvements for the JPEG plug-in. As I mentioned
some time ago, I would like to hide the current quality slider among
the advanced options,
From: Raphaël Quinet [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+ remove the prompt for EXIF orientation: it should always be done
I agree with this idea now. The problem I had with it before is
that it would do bad things to people whose EXIF images had incorrect
rotation information, and that would have
On Sat, 3 Nov 2007 00:06:18 +0100, Karl Günter Wünsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 02 November 2007, Raphaël Quinet wrote:
There are also some improvements for the JPEG plug-in. As I mentioned
some time ago, I would like to hide the current quality slider among
the advanced options,
Okay I want to clear this up:
GEGL *is* coded (see www.gegl.org), and already in use by a few
different applications.
Much apologies. I was always under the impression that while there
is a working version, more work could have been used for adding
features and such. I blame my lack of
On 10/27/07, Valerie VK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Okay I want to clear this up:
GEGL *is* coded (see www.gegl.org), and already in use by a few
different applications.
Much apologies. I was always under the impression that while there
is a working version, more work could have been used
Hi,
On Sat, 2007-10-27 at 01:32 -0700, Valerie VK wrote:
Basically, what's needed is a roadmap of how GEGL will be integrated?
Complete with a definition of all the parts that need to use it, and
how?
Maybe this should be developed before a Gimp roadmap is defined?
We have already
Hi,
so it looks like we should toss some ideas around here on the
mailing-list to get an idea what could be our goals for 2.6. Let me just
propose a few things for discussion:
- Port internals to GEGL
We are pretty sure that we want to do this but we need a more
thorough proposal of what
- Original Message
From: Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 9:25:46 AM
Subject: [Gimp-developer] 2.6 roadmap
Hi,
so it looks like we should toss some ideas around here on the
mailing-list to get an idea what could be our goals
On 10/26/07, Micahel Grosberg wrote:
I think making a roadmap is a very important step in the development of Gimp.
But I suggest before that, Gimp needs a mission statement.
It already has one
http://gui.gimp.org/index.php/GIMP_UI_Redesign#product_vision
Alexandre
Micahel Grosberg wrote:
I believe Gimp's target audience should be the home user and amateur
photographer, and future development in this direction should take precedence
over features for the professional artist.
Could I object? Currently GIMP is one and the only potential free OS
tool
Micahel Grosberg wrote:
I believe Gimp's target audience should be the home user and amateur
photographer, and future development in this direction should take
precedence over features for the professional artist.
First of all, sorry by the caveman's english.
I'm a professional artist and I
So... Gimp currently has 4 major goals?
- Cairo
- GEGL
- Add named parameters and default values to the PDB
- 6 months development cycle.
Wouldn't it be easier to treat them as Separate goals for separate
releases? Once Cairo and GEGL (I have no idea for the Parameters feature,
so apologies for
On 10/27/07, Valerie VK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So... Gimp currently has 4 major goals?
- Cairo
- GEGL
- Add named parameters and default values to the PDB
- 6 months development cycle.
Wouldn't it be easier to treat them as Separate goals for separate
releases? Once Cairo and GEGL (I
49 matches
Mail list logo
