Hi,
"Joao S. O. Bueno Calligaris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, Indeed I missed those - actually, I have no trace of such
> replies here. That means that probably e-mails from you that have
> me on the "to" field are being enttraped on my provider's anti-span
> filters - on Saturday there w
Ooops --
sorry everybody -
My compliant was that in GIMP CVS, all script fu that operate on a
drawable are asking one to manually select an image and drawable. The
major problem in there is that the current drawable is not always the
default.
On Sunday 28 November 2004 20:42, Sven Neumann wrot
Hi,
Michael Schumacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Joao S. O. Bueno Calligaris wrote:
>> So,
>> just Kevin replied to my e-mail regarding script-fu behavior - But
>> I'd say it is a "urgent - blocker" kind of problem. Even if the
>> solution is to ship tiny-fu on the tarball.
>
> Context?
Joa
Hi,
"Joao S. O. Bueno Calligaris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> just Kevin replied to my e-mail regarding script-fu behavior - But
> I'd say it is a "urgent - blocker" kind of problem. Even if the
> solution is to ship tiny-fu on the tarball.
It has been fixed in the meantime.
Sven
___
Joao S. O. Bueno Calligaris wrote:
So,
just Kevin replied to my e-mail regarding script-fu behavior - But I'd
say it is a "urgent - blocker" kind of problem. Even if the solution
is to ship tiny-fu on the tarball.
Context?
Michael
--
The GIMP > http://www.gimp.org | IRC: irc://irc.gimp.org/
So,
just Kevin replied to my e-mail regarding script-fu behavior - But I'd
say it is a "urgent - blocker" kind of problem. Even if the solution
is to ship tiny-fu on the tarball.
___
Gimp-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.
