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 Christopher W. Curtis
[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 capabilities. There are anonymous CVS servers for the GIMP. Yes, yes there are.

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