Re: gimp patch 1.1.32-1.2.0 [Also: Re: cmon guys, no patch from 1.1.32 to 1.2??]

2001-01-17 Thread Tom Rathborne
Chris; On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 06:45:18PM -0500, Christopher W. Curtis wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9 Jan, Christopher Curtis wrote: I don't see a public rsync server for gimp, cvs or otherwise. Perhaps this might be an acceptable option for people with modest bandwidth

Re: gimp patch 1.1.32-1.2.0 [Also: Re: cmon guys, no patch from 1.1.32 to 1.2??]

2001-01-17 Thread Tom Rathborne
Hi folks On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 06:51:21PM -0500, Tom Rathborne wrote: On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 06:45:18PM -0500, Christopher W. Curtis wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9 Jan, Christopher Curtis wrote: I don't see a public rsync server for gimp, cvs or otherwise. Perhaps this

Re: gimp patch 1.1.32-1.2.0 [Also: Re: cmon guys, no patch from 1.1.32 to 1.2??]

2001-01-12 Thread Tomas Ogren
On 10 January, 2001 - Raphael Quinet sent me these 2.1K bytes: Unfortunately, none of the three addresses mentioned for anoncvs allowed me to get any files. One of them failed because of a server configuration problem, another one could be reached but did not respond, and the last one was

Re: gimp patch 1.1.32-1.2.0 [Also: Re: cmon guys, no patch from 1.1.32 to 1.2??]

2001-01-10 Thread egger
On 9 Jan, Christopher Curtis wrote: Patchsets also have a big problem which timecop already noticed: They don't contain binary files or patches to such and thus a patched tree might miss quite a few important files after a while. xdelta wouldn't cause that particular problem but is

Re: gimp patch 1.1.32-1.2.0 [Also: Re: cmon guys, no patch from 1.1.32 to 1.2??]

2001-01-10 Thread Raphael Quinet
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9 Jan, Christopher Curtis wrote: They do; if we started now to switch over to deltas then quite a few people would complain about that. I definitely see the point, I'm behind a very narrow pipe as well so I prefer patches, too, but what is

Re: gimp patch 1.1.32-1.2.0 [Also: Re: cmon guys, no patch from 1.1.32 to 1.2??]

2001-01-10 Thread Garry R. Osgood
Raphael Quinet wrote: Two days ago, I installed a new modem on my home PC because I thought that after having spent several years working with semi-obsolete released versions of the source code, I should get the bleeding edge and use CVS from home (no firewall problems). So I tried to get

Re: gimp patch 1.1.32-1.2.0 [Also: Re: cmon guys, no patch from 1.1.32 to 1.2??]

2001-01-09 Thread Christopher Curtis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Patchsets also have a big problem which timecop already noticed: They don't contain binary files or patches to such and thus a patched tree might miss quite a few important files after a while. xdelta wouldn't cause that particular problem but is harder to use

Re: gimp patch 1.1.32-1.2.0 [Also: Re: cmon guys, no patch from 1.1.32 to 1.2??]

2000-12-28 Thread egger
On 26 Dec, Garry R. Osgood wrote: The tarballs and patch-sets are really meant for end-users who prefer to compile from source, but don't otherwise desire to get involved in maintenance and so don't have a strong motivation to keep a bleeding-edge source tree around. Patch sets are

Re: gimp patch 1.1.32-1.2.0 [Also: Re: cmon guys, no patch from 1.1.32 to 1.2??]

2000-12-26 Thread Garry R. Osgood
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I got off my lazy arse and made a patch. I have no idea whether I did things correctly, I just downloaded the gimp- 1.1.32.tar.bz2 and gimp-1.2.0.tar.bz2 files, unpacked them, did diff -u -r gimp-1.1.32 gimp-1.2.0 gimp-patch, then bzip2'd that. It's 534kb, and you