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

Hi,

"Joao S. O. Bueno Calligaris" 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

Hi,

Michael Schumacher 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?

Joao was probably refering to a thread on gimp-developer. I have no idea why he changed to this list to continue it. He also obviously missed the two replies that I sent in response to his original complaint.

Sven

Hi,

"Joao S. O. Bueno Calligaris" 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 was another e-mail you said you wrote and which I did not receive.

Yes, my mails bounced but you should have seen them coming in on the mailing-list nevertheless.

Sven