Hi,
Adam D. Moss [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Michael Natterer wrote:
Nick Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
NB I am not blind and I don't write code in Hebrew
I respect your extraordinary tolerance regarding this, so please
respect that the people actually working on a project tend
Hi,
Simon Budig [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ok, I think we had a lot of arguments now. Could we try to agree on the
following:
1) Currently Gimp CVS depends on Gtk+ CVS, because the improvements
made in Gtk+ CVS (over 1.3.6) are very important for the lead
developers.
2)
On Fri, Jul 27, 2001 at 02:12:05AM +0100, Nick Lamb wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 01:27:59AM -0400, Malcolm Tredinnick wrote:
For CVS gimp, it is definitely not a problem to require the current
bleeding edge GTK.
Malcolm did you ask me first? If you didn't, how did you come to the
As an occasional developer, I ran into a problem trying to get CVS pango
working - errors on link with the qt libraries. Anyone else expereienced
these? Not at my machine now, or I'd include the errors.
I didn't see any obvious switches in the configure. I'm a bit annoyed that qt
is
Alright, this is turning into a flamewar and that's the least productive
of all. Let me try to wrap up this discussion:
The question: Will the gimp-1.3 developer releases depend on Gtk-1.3
HEAD CVS, or do we make certain every gimp-1.3.x release compiles with
gtk-1.3.y?
Arguments for depending
Michael Natterer wrote:
Nick Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
NB I am not blind and I don't write code in Hebrew
I respect your extraordinary tolerance regarding this, so please
respect that the people actually working on a project tend to make the
decisions.
Uh, that's pretty harsh if I
Kelly Martin wrote:
Think plugin authors. These people are going to want to start
working on porting their plugins to 2.0 well in advance of 2.0's
release but are not likely to want to cope with being GTK debuggers on
top of being GIMP debuggers.
Kelly
I may be misunderstanding, I'm
On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 22:18:32 +0200, Lourens Veen [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I may be misunderstanding, I'm not a project expert, but if the Gtk
API is frozen, the only difference between the CVS HEAD branch and
the latest developer release is bugfixes right? So then there should
be actually less
Kelly Martin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 22:18:32 +0200, Lourens Veen [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I may be misunderstanding, I'm not a project expert, but if the Gtk
API is frozen, the only difference between the CVS HEAD branch and
the latest developer release is bugfixes
Adam D. Moss [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Michael Natterer wrote:
Nick Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
NB I am not blind and I don't write code in Hebrew
I respect your extraordinary tolerance regarding this, so please
respect that the people actually working on a project tend to
Adam D. Moss [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We had an adequately generic GUI and most users couldn't
give a whit about the internal object model, but I can
see an attraction to hackers.
Well I find GIMP 1.2's UI not at all generic. The whole GIMP is a huge
pile of global variables and dialogs
On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 11:18:58PM -0500, Kelly Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sufficiently large y. We bumped y as it became necessary. The HEAD
revision was only occasionally required, and usually only for a short
time until GTK+ released a new unstable version.
so what? nobody requires
On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 05:57:50PM +0100, Adam D. Moss wrote:
Michael Natterer wrote:
after some hours of torturing it with perl and some manual hacking,
i got gimp running on current CVS glib/gtk+.
...
(applying it means that if you want to hack or simply use gimp 1.3,
you will need
On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 01:27:59AM -0400, Malcolm Tredinnick wrote:
For CVS gimp, it is definitely not a problem to require the current
bleeding edge GTK.
Malcolm did you ask me first? If you didn't, how did you come to the
conclusion that it wouldn't be a problem for me (a developer, even if
Michael Natterer wrote:
after some hours of torturing it with perl and some manual hacking,
i got gimp running on current CVS glib/gtk+.
...
(applying it means that if you want to hack or simply use gimp 1.3,
you will need glib, pango, atk and gtk+ HEAD from CVS too).
I few questions:
*
Adam D. Moss wrote:
Is GTK 1.3
(or GTK 1.9, or 2.0, or whatever the GTK HEAD is!)
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
On Wed, 25 Jul 2001 17:57:50 +0100, Adam D. Moss [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
* What are pango and atk, and why do we suddenly require them (if
indeed we do)?
* Are there compelling advantages to using CVS-GTK which outweigh the
cons of forcing developers and users to upgrade? Is GTK 1.3 not
Hi,
answering both mails in one...
Kelly Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2001 17:57:50 +0100, Adam D. Moss [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
* What are pango and atk, and why do we suddenly require them (if
indeed we do)?
Pango is the font layout and rendering system used by gtk+.
Michael Natterer wrote:
And BTW, GIMP 1.4 will be released _after_ Gtk 2.0 is released in a
stable version (which will be in not too distant future).
I assumed nothing less.
IMHO the pro's outweigh the con's by far, as it's simply not
possible without grand hacks to write an internal object
On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 03:43:51PM -0500, Kelly Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you have to use a development version at least pick a fixed point
in development and use that. Otherwise you're coding to not one, but
two moving targets: your own code PLUS the moving code in the library
you
Hi,
Kelly Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why should we expect the GTK+ developers to keep their HEAD revision
compilable at every moment? That is a completely unreasonable
expectation in the first place. If I were a GTK+ developer I would be
asking that you NOT do what you're proposing
Kelly Martin wrote:
[snip]
If GTK stable release (1.2) is not acceptable for further development
in the GIMP (which it probably is not), I would strongly urge picking
a relatively stable snapshot of GTK+ current development (possibly,
but not necessarily HEAD today) and use that. We might
On 26 Jul 2001 00:17:03 +0200, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
you are obviously not well informed about the current state of
GTK+-2.0.
No, I don't _care_ about the current state of the development of an
unreleased package. We should not be using unreleased code.
Why can't we just use
Hi,
Kelly Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why can't we just use 1.3.6? That's a frozen release that should be
reasonably close to the eventual 2.0.0 release.
who said, we couldn't do this? I do know that the current CVS HEAD works
and has some smaller improvements but that could of course
On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 04:40:41PM -0500, Kelly Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why should we expect the GTK+ developers to keep their HEAD revision
compilable at every moment?
because that's what they do, what gimp does, what every other project
does. if the head revision isn't compilable
25 matches
Mail list logo