On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 12:48 AM, Simon Quigley <[email protected]> wrote: >> In other words, it was only committed to master after the gimp-2-8 >> branch was made; and there's no evidence that this was cherry-picked >> onto the gimp-2-8 branch (from a quick log inspection). It indeed does >> not appear that this commit is in 2.8.18, although it should be in 2.9.4 >> (an unstable-series release). It might be worth asking upstream whether >> it can be fixed in the 2.8 series.
That matches what I understood from comment 25: the change was way later than 2.18 was released so 2.18 likely sits on a branch and master is the current development version. https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=678085#c25 > Nice catch, thank you. I *thought* that was on master at the time of the > git tag, but the web interface tricked me. I learned a new git command > today. ;) > > So in other words, Robert, it's very unlikely that the package I > uploaded to that PPA will fix your problem. We'll have to wait for that > patch to be backported, and I don't know if there's a clean way to do > that as that branch might be far ahead of master. I'll keep the PPA > there and I'll keep my eye out for when that gets into master (so it can > be applied easily). I'll dig into this more in a bit, and I'll see if I > can comment on that bug, citing this email thread. Thank you guys for checking! Does it make sense to poke Ari and Jordi (original maintainers according to http://packages.ubuntu.com/xenial/gimp )? Kind regards robert -- [guy, jim, charlie].each {|him| remember.him do |as, often| as.you_can - without end} http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/ -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
