>
>
> To maximize chances of getting this into GIMP:
>
> 1. Create a regression test for the despecle plug-in that is run
>with 'make check'. This is a great way to convince us that
>your optimization in fact does not change the output, only
>improves performance.
> 2. Create a patch, f
On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 22:19 +0200, g...@catking.net wrote:
> I agree. I had to clean up some photos recently and ended up doing most
> of it by hand.
>
> If you code produces the same kind of results with that much of a speed
> increase a patch would be worth providing. Kudos for achieving that
On 07/13/10 19:52, Sven Neumann wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 10:49 +0200, Martin Nordholts wrote:
>> On 07/13/2010 10:28 AM, Przemysław Zych wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> As a part of my student project for "Optimizing Open-Source
>>> Applications" at Warsaw University I have speed up despeckle plug-in
On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 10:49 +0200, Martin Nordholts wrote:
> On 07/13/2010 10:28 AM, Przemysław Zych wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > As a part of my student project for "Optimizing Open-Source
> > Applications" at Warsaw University I have speed up despeckle plug-in for
> > gimp.
> >
> > Original version of
On 07/13/2010 10:28 AM, Przemysław Zych wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As a part of my student project for "Optimizing Open-Source
> Applications" at Warsaw University I have speed up despeckle plug-in for
> gimp.
>
> Original version of the plugin run 56seconds for 1024x768 image with
> despeckle radius 30 and
