Joao S. O. Bueno ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I've tried Simons Patch, and it seemed very nice for me.
Of course I am innoi position to word out what should and should not
be commited, but from a user point of view, it is nice.
There are two things I'd like to know.
As you know Gimp avoids
Simon Budig ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
a) open the image as big as possible (zoom-to-fit to a window about
0.75 * screen dimensions), this roughly is the behavior of current
CVS.
b) open the image in the next smaller zoom preset (which would result
in image windows smaller than the
On Wednesday 21 January 2004 12:27, Simon Budig wrote:
Joao S. O. Bueno ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I've tried Simons Patch, and it seemed very nice for me.
Of course I am innoi position to word out what should and should
not be commited, but from a user point of view, it is nice.
There
Hi,
Joao S. O. Bueno [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Actually, 0.75 is sometimes boring, when the whole image would fit in,
say, 90% of the screen, and it shows up zoomed out.
regarding your specific question, it would not be nice if the GIMP
openned an image in a zoom factor that once changed
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 04:13:19AM +0100, Marc A. Lehmann wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 02:22:57AM +0100, Simon Budig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
other parts, and I already had enough with C guts) and is small, it
just fits in place with the old code instead of more deep changes.
True.
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 01:24:15AM -0800, Manish Singh wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 04:13:19AM +0100, Marc A. Lehmann wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 02:22:57AM +0100, Simon Budig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
other parts, and I already had enough with C guts) and is small, it
just fits
I've tried Simons Patch, and it seemed very nice for me.
Of course I am innoi position to word out what should and should not
be commited, but from a user point of view, it is nice.
Unfortunately I could not check GSR's patch because of compiling
issues.
Regards,
JS
--
On
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 01:24:15AM -0800, Manish Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, the bulk of the code in gimp that causes warnings is stuff like:
void foo (void **p);
void bar (void)
{
int *i;
foo ((void **) i);
}
While it does break the letter of the law wrt aliasing rules,
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 02:51:17PM +0100, Marc A. Lehmann wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 01:24:15AM -0800, Manish Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, the bulk of the code in gimp that causes warnings is stuff like:
void foo (void **p);
void bar (void)
{
int *i;
foo ((void
[restricting this to gimp-devel, since this is purely technical stuff]
GSR - FR ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (2004-01-19 at 1524.44 +0100):
[technical discussion :)]
I think I already explained why I prefer the set of ratios based on
the idea of homogenous zooming. So the
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 02:22:57AM +0100, Simon Budig wrote:
[restricting this to gimp-devel, since this is purely technical stuff]
GSR - FR ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (2004-01-19 at 1524.44 +0100):
[technical discussion :)]
I think I already explained why I prefer
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 02:22:57AM +0100, Simon Budig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
other parts, and I already had enough with C guts) and is small, it
just fits in place with the old code instead of more deep changes.
True. (These break strict aliasing rules warnings however are harmless
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (2004-01-19 at 1524.44 +0100):
[technical discussion :)]
I think I already explained why I prefer the set of ratios based on
the idea of homogenous zooming. So the rest of this Mail focuses
on the technical issues of your patch.
The last patch I sent does homogenous
13 matches
Mail list logo
