Hi,
"Adam D. Moss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Submitted as bug 161113. I've given it the usual selection
> of tests and I'm confident that it doesn't introduce any major
> bugs...
It's in CVS now.
> I'll see if I can move my tree to 2.2pre tonight, though I
> suspect that the patch in that
Michael Schumacher wrote:
Why can't you test 2.1 (or 2.2pre, rather)?
I thought GIMP 2.2 required GTK >= 2.4.
> On a decent distro
I'm not on a decent distro. :)
--Adam
--
Adam D. Moss . ,,^^ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.foxbox.org/ co:3
___
Gimp-
Sven Neumann wrote:
Please do file your bug report as soon as possible. We might even
still sneak it into 2.2 if you are confident that your changes don't
introduce any major bugs.
Submitted as bug 161113. I've given it the usual selection
of tests and I'm confident that it doesn't introduce any m
Adam D. Moss wrote:
Ah, it's worse than I remembered, since the
patch is actually against GIMP 1.2! But I'm
compiling up GIMP 2.0.x now and so hope to have time to
port this to 2.0 today, and from there hopefully it's
only a short hop to 2.1.x (but I can't test that).
Why can't you test 2.1 (or 2.
Ah, it's worse than I remembered, since the
patch is actually against GIMP 1.2! But I'm
compiling up GIMP 2.0.x now and so hope to have time to
port this to 2.0 today, and from there hopefully it's
only a short hop to 2.1.x (but I can't test that).
--Adam
__
"Adam D. Moss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi.
>
> I've been sitting on a backend patch for probably most of
> the year, that greatly improves the quality of positional/fixed
> dither -- against GIMP 2.0.x. I was hoping to find time to get
> a GIMP 2.1.x build working and forward-port the patch
Hi,
"Adam D. Moss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've been sitting on a backend patch for probably most of
> the year, that greatly improves the quality of positional/fixed
> dither -- against GIMP 2.0.x. I was hoping to find time to get
> a GIMP 2.1.x build working and forward-port the patch, b
