Am 18.12.2005 um 21:44 schrieb Phil Albert: Am I in a time machine???Release of 2.24? Been there , done that.. Try Dev.Release 2.3.5.......WOW...
Seems so?!
hmm, does your mail make any sense??
lexa On 12/18/05, gimp-docs-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <gimp-docs-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Send Gimp-docs mailing list submissions to
gimp-docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-docs
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
gimp-docs-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
You can reach the person managing the list at
gimp-docs-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Gimp-docs digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. REMOVE ME FROM YOUR MAILING LIST NOWREMOVE ME FROM YOUR
MAILING LIST NOWREMOVE ( DES0LATEDREAMS4U@xxxxxxx)
2. [BULK] (picturebarry@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
3. Re: Proposal for Metadata (Roman Joost)
4. Re: Proposal for Metadata (Axel Wernicke)
5. Re: Proposal for Metadata (Roman Joost)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 09:38:01 EST
From: DES0LATEDREAMS4U@xxxxxxx
Subject: [Gimp-docs] REMOVE ME FROM YOUR MAILING LIST NOWREMOVE ME
FROM YOUR MAILING LIST NOWREMOVE
To: gimp-docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Message-ID: <287.26792db.30d6ce49@xxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Skipped content of type multipart/related
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 10:28:56 -0500
From: <picturebarry@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Gimp-docs] [BULK]
To: < Gimp-docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID:
<20051218152856.KGGL3833.ibm60aec.bellsouth.net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
please remove me from your lists.
thank you
picturebarry@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 18:59:48 +0100
From: Roman Joost <romanofski@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Gimp-docs] Proposal for Metadata
To: GIMP Docs < gimp-docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID: <20051218175948.GA19532@clyde>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 03:12:12PM +0100, Axel Wernicke wrote:
> to be honest I don't see the benefit of changing the kind of comments we do by now. The
> information is almost the same, but due to that huge surrounding docbook structure it's very
> hard to read in the source. Right now I'd prefer to stick to the way we are doing it today,
> but may be you can convince me.
The advantage is, that people are able to see what happened with the
article they're looking at. If the document is out of date, because the
last change was a year ago, we could probably encouraged some people to
change that. Of course a very vague assumption, but not an impossible
one.
It is a very technical approach. The disadvantage about the current
comments are, that our readers don't see the comments. Though we have
to think about the releases. During releases we should skip to display
this metadata.
Greetings,
--
Roman Joost
www: http://www.romanofski.de
email: romanofski@xxxxxxxx
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /lists/gimp-docs/attachments/20051218/5172e0a0/attachment- 0001.bin
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 19:48:23 +0100
From: Axel Wernicke <axel.wernicke@xxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Gimp-docs] Proposal for Metadata
To: Roman Joost <romanofski@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: GIMP Docs <gimp-docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID: < F7636391-6CFE-4FFE-A190-F1B8ABF11830@xxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Am 18.12.2005 um 18:59 schrieb Roman Joost:
> On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 03:12:12PM +0100, Axel Wernicke wrote:
>> to be honest I don't see the benefit of changing the kind of
>> comments we do by now. The
>> information is almost the same, but due to that huge surrounding
>> docbook structure it's very
>> hard to read in the source. Right now I'd prefer to stick to the
>> way we are doing it today,
>> but may be you can convince me.
> The advantage is, that people are able to see what happened with the
> article they're looking at. If the document is out of date, because
> the
> last change was a year ago, we could probably encouraged some
> people to
> change that. Of course a very vague assumption, but not an impossible
> one.
That would of course work only if the revision entries were language
dependant. Otherwise If someone translates content from the GIMP
stone age the document seems updated recently to *ALL* readers, but
was translated to a new language only :(
I think most of the content is independent of time anyway. It simply
doesn't matter if a tutorial was written yesterday or two years ago.
Where time (GIMP releases) matter of course is everything that is
related to the reference part of the manual.
May be we should hurry up to get up to date for the 2.2 release (I
guess we are not that far away from that) and then freeze and release
it as gimp-help 1.0. With this we could split up the changelog (which
is btw. pretty large already now) and have a sweet start for bringing
the relevant topics up to gimp 2.4 then.
So if we decide to switch to revhistory elements we need to
- make sure we can hide it from release html / pdf versions
- make it lang dependent (how is this supposed to work with cvs??)
- define in which granularity it should be done (today we do it by
file, but not sect1 sect2 specific)
- introduce it step by step
Greetings, lexa
>
> It is a very technical approach. The disadvantage about the current
> comments are, that our readers don't see the comments. Though we have
> to think about the releases. During releases we should skip to display
> this metadata.
>
> Greetings,
> --
> Roman Joost
> www: http://www.romanofski.de
> email: romanofski@xxxxxxxx
> _______________________________________________
> Gimp-docs mailing list
> Gimp-docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-docs
---
Live is like a chocolate box, you never know what you wanna get...
GPG Signatur auf http://wernicke-online.net/Impressum/ prüfen
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: Signierter Teil der Nachricht
Url : /lists/gimp-docs/attachments/20051218/11470a5a/PGP- 0001.bin
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 20:36:20 +0100
From: Roman Joost <romanofski@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Gimp-docs] Proposal for Metadata
To: GIMP Docs <gimp-docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID: <20051218193620.GA20140@clyde>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 07:48:23PM +0100, Axel Wernicke wrote:
> >The advantage is, that people are able to see what happened with the
> >article they're looking at. If the document is out of date, because the
> >last change was a year ago, we could probably encouraged some people to
> >change that. Of course a very vague assumption, but not an impossible
> >one.
> That would of course work only if the revision entries were language
> dependant. Otherwise If someone translates content from the GIMP stone
> age the document seems updated recently to *ALL* readers, but was
> translated to a new language only :(
Actually, I never thought about making this information language
dependant. The current comments aren't language dependent, so this
metadata shouldn't be as well. It is just developer information. The
docs hosted on http://docs.gimp.org are developer snapshots, so I
thought that displaying this information for the developer snapshots
would be a nice to have feature for readers and esp. probably upcoming
writers or proof readers.
> I think most of the content is independent of time anyway. It simply doesn't matter if a
> tutorial was written yesterday or two years ago. Where time (GIMP releases) matter of course
> is everything that is related to the reference part of the manual.
Well, a tutorial written for GIMP 1.2 would be more or less unusable
nowadays. Of course, if you really want to understand that specific
feature, you're free to find the necessary triggers. But I think, that
every aspect of the manual is dependent on the GIMP version and
therefore dependent on time.
> May be we should hurry up to get up to date for the 2.2 release (I guess we are not that far
> away from that) and then freeze and release it as gimp-help 1.0. With this we could split up
> the changelog (which is btw. pretty large already now) and have a sweet start for bringing the
> relevant topics up to gimp 2.4 then.
>
> So if we decide to switch to revhistory elements we need to
> - make sure we can hide it from release html / pdf versions
That wouldn't be the tricky part IMHO. Just using a customized
stylesheet of the current stylesheets which suppresses the info elements
should do the trick.
> - make it lang dependent (how is this supposed to work with cvs??)
If we really want to do that, it would work like the current profiling
works. But I don't think we should make it language dependant, just for
the sake of completeness. It's just not worth it IMO.
> - define in which granularity it should be done (today we do it by file, but not sect1 sect2
> specific)
Good point - haven't thought about that.
> - introduce it step by step
Yep or maybe after a 1.0 release? Hm.. step by step seems to be better
...
Greetings,
--
Roman Joost
www: http://www.romanofski.de
email: romanofski@xxxxxxxx
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /lists/gimp-docs/attachments/20051218/3259f43e/attachment-0001.bin
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Gimp-docs mailing list
Gimp-docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-docs
End of Gimp-docs Digest, Vol 19, Issue 13
*****************************************
--
Phil >gmail<Personal only!!!!!!!!!!
Alternates>philalbert9@xxxxxxxxx<Media transfers,
Audio, Video,Photo.........................
> philidog9@xxxxxxxxxxxx< Certs & Dig. signatures>_______________________________________________ Gimp-docs mailing list
|
