On 15 August 2017 at 14:04, Dan Ackroyd wrote:
> Actually, it would be lovely if anyone contributed to Imagick.
So far, no volunteers. :-p
As well as the documentation that are open, this bug:
https://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=73840
Is one that doesn't require any knowledge of ImageMagickit
On 31 August 2017 at 02:30, Kris Craig wrote:
> Why would they need to be synced?
Currently Imagick can have a single branch. Commits to that branch are
made and then for the next release, we can determine if it needs to be
a major minor or patch release based on the changes.
People are then fr
Yeah, I keep thinking about this.
I'm not sure there's a really good reason why PHP shouldn't come with
best-in-class image support, if it's available - which it sounds like it
is; libvips looks more modern, lower memory and CPU overhead, better
overall really, and appears to be stable and up-to-d
2. Releasing Imagick with PHP means that the release cycles would need
to be sync'ed. This has proven to be inconvenient in the past when an
extension has wanted to change the api, but was forced to wait due to
needed to wait for the next minor/major version of PHP.
Why would they need to be syn
On 23.08.2017 at 14:42, Rasmus Schultz wrote:
> The libvips module does in deed look interesting. I suppose this would have
> all the same problems though? Lots of dependencies.
>
> So GD wins perhaps mostly because it's small and has fewer dependencies.
I'm not sure about that. If GD is to be
On 8/23/2017 5:42 AM, Rasmus Schultz wrote:
I'm not a C developer though, so I can't help with that.
The world's core software runs on C. PHP is also written in C. You
can't develop extensions for PHP unless you know C. Developing userland
applications in PHP is a lot easier when you know
Thank you all for considering the subject and contributing your thoughts.
I understand why Imagick is not attractive as a standard module (even
according to the maintainer) since we can't feasible bundle all it's
dependencies, so I suppose that's a no-go.
The libvips module does in deed look inte
hi Rasmus,
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 5:52 PM, Rasmus Schultz wrote:
> The following GD issue is all-too common:
>
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5773032/how-to-stop-gd2-from-washing-away-the-colors-upon-resizing-images
>
> Basically anyone who's ever accepted uploaded images and resized or
>
Le 15/08/2017 à 12:52, Rasmus Schultz a écrit :
> I am starting to wonder why GD is the default in PHP?
Don't really know, perhaps because the first one ?
But we have various alternatives:
- imagick
- gmagick
- vips
(perhaps others)
And ImageMagick is really an ugly upstream
- most common commi
2017-08-15 13:52 GMT+03:00 Rasmus Schultz :
> The following GD issue is all-too common:
>
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5773032/how-to-stop-gd2-from-washing-away-the-colors-upon-resizing-images
>
> Basically anyone who's ever accepted uploaded images and resized or
> converted them, has bum
On 15 August 2017 at 12:11, Kalle Sommer Nielsen wrote:
> the maintainer of Imagick,
Hey, that's me!
> and work together with the maintainer of Imagick,
Actually, it would be lovely if anyone contributed to Imagick.
I've been the maintainer of the extension for a little over three
years and ha
On Tue, 15 Aug 2017, Rasmus Schultz wrote:
> The following GD issue is all-too common:
>
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5773032/how-to-stop-gd2-from-washing-away-the-colors-upon-resizing-images
>
> Basically anyone who's ever accepted uploaded images and resized or
> converted them, has b
2017-08-15 12:52 GMT+02:00 Rasmus Schultz Why is the less-capable image library the default on the PHP platform? Why
> not Imagick?
Most likely because no one have come fourth and attempted to push it
into core and have been willing to do all the work required for it.
As for GD, I would argue an
13 matches
Mail list logo
