On Fri, 28 Jan 2000 19:18:53 -0500, Robert L Krawitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>And yes, I agree with Michael also that 2002 is not a reasonable
>target for the next stable release of the Gimp.
Target dates are impossible to stick to. I offered 2002 because it
took two years to go from 1.0 to 1
On Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 02:36:36PM -0700, "Michael J. Hammel"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> They do make it moderately easy during installation, but the default
> installations include lots of things many users will never need. But
This is not at all a distribution issue. Linux is a *multi*-user
From: "Michael J. Hammel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 14:31:15 -0700 (MST)
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gimp Developer List)
Thus spoke Kelly Lynn Martin
> I agree entirely. It is my considered position that the first thing
> we should with 1.3 is remove all, or virtua
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 18:03:32 -0500
From: Federico Mena Quintero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If a GNOME program does not run under "bare" X or KDE, then it is
broken and should be fixed. Do you have any examples of such
programs?
No; I just wanted to make certa
> We might also choose to use the upcoming Gnome Print System if it turns
> out to fit our needs and appears to be portable to non-Linux systems.
>
> As long as it doesn't require actually running Gnome (works with bare
> X, KDE, etc.) and its footprint is reasonably light, that sounds
On Fri, 28 Jan 2000 23:47:25 +0100, Marc Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Most (but of course not all) of the problems are related to the fact
>that the menus are too full and can'T be changed, not necessarily
>that too many plug-ins are installed (which is mostly a diskspace
>problem).
One of
On Fri, 28 Jan 2000 18:03:32 -0500, Federico Mena Quintero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
>(As for footprint, well, the GIMP is not terribly lightweight either)
>:-)
GIMP's a lot lighter than gnome-libs. I would substantially oppose
any serious dependence on gnome-libs in GIMP. Especially since
gn
On Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 06:03:32PM -0500, Federico Mena Quintero
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> (As for footprint, well, the GIMP is not terribly lightweight either) :-)
Well, the main block is probably the considerable number of libraries
gnome consists of ;*> I mean, we could create the kille
Thus spoke Marc Lehmann
> Well, most distros tend to compile every optional feature they cna find
> into a program. It's already not too difficult to tailor a distribution,
> but nobody does that.
They do make it moderately easy during installation, but the default
installations include lots of t
Thus spoke Kelly Lynn Martin
> I agree entirely. It is my considered position that the first thing
> we should with 1.3 is remove all, or virtually all, of the plug-ins
> from the standard distribution. Moving them to the gimp-plug-in
> repository on sourceforge seems practical. All we need to
On Fri, 28 Jan 2000 21:40:56 +0100, Marc Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>One possible reason is that it is a pain in the ass to install
>additional plug-ins. Some things, like translations, must be part of
>the distribution currently.
This needs to be fixed. :)
Kelly
On Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 04:09:55PM -0500, Kelly Lynn Martin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >One possible reason is that it is a pain in the ass to install
> >additional plug-ins. Some things, like translations, must be part of
> >the distribution currently.
>
> This needs to be fixed. :)
Wel... w
On Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 11:55:20AM -0700, "Michael J. Hammel"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm curious why any new plug-ins should be added to the core *at all*.
> Gimp's distribution is fairly large as it is. Isn't it getting time to
One goal of the seperate cvs is to make the choice between "
On Fri, 28 Jan 2000 18:49:29 +0100, Marc Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>I am determined to branch the gimp-plug-ins tree at the same moment
>the original gimp-cvs tree creates a stable branch. I guess that
>might be the right moment to enable mirroring (to the main trunk, not
>the stable bran
On Fri, 28 Jan 2000 11:55:20 -0700 (MST), "Michael J. Hammel"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>I'm curious why any new plug-ins should be added to the core *at
>all*. Gimp's distribution is fairly large as it is. Isn't it
>getting time to limit additional plug-ins to the core distribution to
>plug-i
Thus spoke Kelly Lynn Martin
> My position is sourceforge should be used at this time only for
> plug-ins which are not already in the source tree. Such plug-ins will
> not be a part of 1.2 anyway because 1.2 is frozen at this time. When
> 1.3 development begins, we can decide what to do with th
Thus spoke Zach Beane - MINT
> On Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 05:29:48PM +0100, Marc Lehmann wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> > However, since the masses haven't cried out yet, I guess we can try and
> > see how it works in practise.
>
> Count this as a cry out against it. I suggest waiting for a logical pause in
On Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 10:40:54AM +0100, Sven Neumann
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > these files in the gimp cvs will get overwritten. I've not found a better
> > way to synchronize two cvs trees better (maybe CVSup would help, but...)
>
> NO!!
okokok ;-> Just when I thought it would be good ;
Hi
Proposition
proposition (despite Gimp freezing):
Difficult choice of colour
Solution
A small colour pick window (the size of palette window)
after clicking enlarging 2-3 times with palette as in the drawing
___
| White |
| R G B |
| Black |
+---+
as in brush, pal
On Fri, 28 Jan 2000 12:40:32 -0500, Zach Beane - MINT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Count this as a cry out against it. I suggest waiting for a logical
>pause in development, such as the release of GIMP 1.2, to begin
>making these not-insubstantial changes in source management.
My position is sourc
On Fri, 28 Jan 2000, Zach Beane - MINT wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 05:29:48PM +0100, Marc Lehmann wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> > However, since the masses haven't cried out yet, I guess we can try and
> > see how it works in practise.
>
> Count this as a cry out against it. I suggest waiting for
On Fri, 28 Jan 2000 17:29:48 +0100, Marc Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>As it is now there is the slight danger that the "self-management"
>can cause _more_ work for the maintainers. If Sven has to od a
>one-line change in every plug-in he would be force to use two
>different cvs servers.
We
On Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 05:29:48PM +0100, Marc Lehmann wrote:
[snip]
>
> However, since the masses haven't cried out yet, I guess we can try and
> see how it works in practise.
Count this as a cry out against it. I suggest waiting for a logical pause in
development, such as the release of GIMP 1
On Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 04:42:57AM -0500, "Garry R. Osgood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe there ought to be a line in PLUGIN_MAINTAINERS indicating
> where "authoritative source" resides?
I'll put the word "sourceforge" into the COMMENT field of any such
plug-ins.
Does anybody know of a way
On Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 12:20:31AM -0500, Kelly Lynn Martin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> FWIW, I think this should be used sparingly. It is my belief that
> we should try to move plugins into a separate package from the GIMP
Yeah. I plan to use this only for plug-ins already in the core.
> dea
I can find no evidence that this is actually used anywhere in the
GIMP. Anybody know what it's for and whether it even works?
Kelly
In ChangeLog :
>> Fri Jan 28 01:16:35 CET 2000 Marc Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>>* PLUGIN_CVS: updated to give Kevin Turner write access to
>>the maze plug-in (therefore, the maze plug-in is no longer
>>managable within the gnome cvs server. If you have any
>>c
Hi,
> Ok. I've just enabled automatic mirroring from the sourceforge cvs back
> to the gimp cvs.
>
> The file gimp/PLUGIN_CVS in the cvs tree controls which paths are mirrored
> and which are not. If anything goes havoc just delete that file and the
> script will stop doing anything.
>
> At the
28 matches
Mail list logo
