Manish Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 08:58:39AM -0800, Nathan Carl Summers wrote:
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004, Manish Singh wrote:
On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 09:44:25PM +0100, David Neary wrote:
What requirements would the new PDB have?
There's a number of issues to be
On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 12:06:33PM +0100, Michael Natterer wrote:
Manish Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 08:58:39AM -0800, Nathan Carl Summers wrote:
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004, Manish Singh wrote:
On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 09:44:25PM +0100, David Neary wrote:
What
On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 08:58:39AM -0800, Nathan Carl Summers wrote:
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004, Manish Singh wrote:
On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 09:44:25PM +0100, David Neary wrote:
What requirements would the new PDB have?
There's a number of issues to be addressed, like GEGL node support,
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004, Manish Singh wrote:
On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 09:44:25PM +0100, David Neary wrote:
How far along is the planning? I have heard of Rock's libpdb,
which I believe he wants to finish for 2.2, but I hadn't heard
any concrete plans for the often-mentioned forthcoming PDB
