Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port

2001-07-28 Thread Sven Neumann
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

Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port

2001-07-28 Thread Sven Neumann
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)

Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port

2001-07-27 Thread Malcolm Tredinnick
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

Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port

2001-07-27 Thread Seth Burgess
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

Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port

2001-07-27 Thread Lourens Veen
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

Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port

2001-07-27 Thread Adam D. Moss
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

Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port

2001-07-27 Thread Lourens Veen
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

Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port

2001-07-27 Thread Kelly Martin
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

Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port

2001-07-27 Thread Simon Budig
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

Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port

2001-07-27 Thread Michael Natterer
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

Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port

2001-07-26 Thread Michael Natterer
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

Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port

2001-07-26 Thread pcg
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

Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port

2001-07-26 Thread Malcolm Tredinnick
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

Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port

2001-07-26 Thread Nick Lamb
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

Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port

2001-07-25 Thread Adam D. Moss
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: *

Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port

2001-07-25 Thread Adam D. Moss
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

Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port

2001-07-25 Thread Kelly Martin
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

Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port

2001-07-25 Thread Michael Natterer
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+.

Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port

2001-07-25 Thread Adam D. Moss
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

Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port

2001-07-25 Thread pcg
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

Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port

2001-07-25 Thread Sven Neumann
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

Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port

2001-07-25 Thread Lourens Veen
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

Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port

2001-07-25 Thread Kelly Martin
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

Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port

2001-07-25 Thread Sven Neumann
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

Re: [Gimp-developer] glib/gtk+ 2.0 port

2001-07-25 Thread pcg
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