Hi,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (2007-10-10 at 1344.25 +0200):
> On Wednesday 10 October 2007 13:30:16 Andrew Young wrote:
> > Please excuse the noob question. Why are there no odd numbered releases?
> > e.g. 2.5? Do they have a special, internal role?
>
> According to old tradition, odd version numbers lik
On Wednesday 10 October 2007 13:30:16 Andrew Young wrote:
> Please excuse the noob question. Why are there no odd numbered releases?
> e.g. 2.5? Do they have a special, internal role?
It has been a long standing tradition amongst many (open source) programs that
odd numbered minor numbers indicat
Interesting. I've never been involved in open source development processes
before. What distinguishes a development version from a stable one? Is the
idea to have the development version more "open" with respect to what goes
in and then control which features are promoted from the development versi
On Wednesday 10 October 2007 13:30:16 Andrew Young wrote:
> Please excuse the noob question. Why are there no odd numbered releases?
> e.g. 2.5? Do they have a special, internal role?
According to old tradition, odd version numbers like 2.5 are for development
versions. There was Gimp 2.3 but it
Please excuse the noob question. Why are there no odd numbered releases? e.g.
2.5? Do they have a special, internal role?
Andy
On 10/8/07, Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 21:29 +0930, David Gowers wrote:
>
> > AFAIK no, it was decided fairly informally, l
Hi,
On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 21:29 +0930, David Gowers wrote:
> AFAIK no, it was decided fairly informally, like in many OSS things --
> people talked, it became the accepted idea over time, and nobody much
> mentioned it outside of the GEGL-developer and GIMP-developer mailing
> lists where it was
David Gowers wrote:
>> You mentioned that GEGL integration is slated for 2.4...2.6 development.
>> Where can I find more information on plans for GIMP's development cycles?
>> Are these documented somewhere on developer.gimp.org?
>>
> AFAIK no, it was decided fairly informally, like in many OSS thi
On 10/8/07, Andrew Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David,
>
> Interesting. GEGL sounds very much in line with a lot of the ideas I have
> about how to approach the problem. Is this seen as the future of GIMP's
> core?
Image representation, certainly. Gimp's core -- maybe. That would
depend on h
David,
Interesting. GEGL sounds very much in line with a lot of the ideas I have
about how to approach the problem. Is this seen as the future of GIMP's
core? How big an effort is the port to GEGL expected to be? It sounds like
an exciting time to join the development team.
You mentioned that GEG
David Gowers wrote:
> there is http://gimp-brainstorm.blogspot.com/ for working out the UI
> (and http://www.mmiworks.net/eng/publications/labels/GIMP.html , the
> precursor).
let me clarify a bit:
http://gui.gimp.org is the place where the interaction team works.
http://www.mmiworks.net/eng/pu
On 10/7/07, Andrew Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I have been an avid Gimp user for a number of years. I have always wished
> Gimp supported non-destructive image adjustments such those available with
> Photoshop "adjustment layers." ... Is anyone looking for a new feature to
> work on and wo
On 10/8/07, Andrew Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Greetings!
>
> I have been an avid Gimp user for a number of years. I have always wished
> Gimp supported non-destructive image adjustments such those available with
> Photoshop "adjustment layers." From searching around the internet, it seems
>
Greetings!
I have been an avid Gimp user for a number of years. I have always wished
Gimp supported non-destructive image adjustments such those available with
Photoshop "adjustment layers." From searching around the internet, it seems
I am not alone in this wish. However, I haven't been able to f
13 matches
Mail list logo
