Hi,
Le jeu 19/06/2003 à 10:55, Sven Neumann a écrit :
You can get 160 hits on google for whatever statement you would like
to make. It is a stupid attempt to try to prove anything with a search
engine that has billions of pages archived.
I also agree that coming up with a google search is
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 11:35:51PM +0200, Sven Neumann wrote:
And please try a google search for gimp 2.0 as suggested. My
quick looking reveals gimp 2.0 backend, 16 bit, cmyk, does qualify
for pre press ...
I did that since Marc suggested and I spent some time with the
results. I
Hans Breuer wrote:
To clarify things a bit and to justify a 2.0 version number for this
release, I made a compressed version of the NEWS file as found in the
1.3 tree. So here's a list of (mostly user-visible) changes. I'm sure
I still missed quite a few things...
I could comment on every
Hi,
pcg( Marc)@goof(A.).(Lehmann )com writes:
I'm sorry but I need to sell this conference at the moment and
everyone seems flat broke. We really could need some good marketing
and instead
Who is we? A company? You are selling a conference? So the fact
that you mentioned the number 2.0 to
Hi,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tino Schwarze) writes:
I did a more specific search:
http://www.google.com/search?q=gimp+2.0+-gtk+-GTK+GEGL+-gimp-developer+-gegl-developer
I excluded pages mentioning GTK plus the developer lists. Still 160
hits, some on major sites. The main argument against naming
Hi,
David Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Personally I wouldn't be averse to calling the current CVS 2.0,
and having a 2.2 pretty quickly afterwards (say around Christmas)
as was done with GTK+ to say All known bugs introduced in the
2.0 release are fixed.
I am glad you said that since
Hi,
pcg( Marc)@goof(A.).(Lehmann )com writes:
Ok, here's _my_ deal: *If* you say that not calling it 2.0 would
cause problems in fundraising, then you simply win... While my
concerns were, for me, important enough to mention them (and argue
about them), and while the gtk+ has 2 etc.. style
Sven Neumann wrote:
Yes, please. But we probably need to get to a point here.
GIMP-something.0 sounds pretty weird for a stable release...
I say it's time for a show of hands. My vote is for 2.0, because
there are likely to be lots of new bugs and 1.4 makes it sould
like a really stable
David Neary wrote:
By the way, what's the current story with PuPUS? Is it abandoned,
or will it get released at some stage post-1.3+?
You can look back through the archives for my notes on
pupus' state. In summary I had to kill it because of lack of
time. An early version was up and running, but
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 12:14:30PM +0200, David Neary wrote:
Yes, please. But we probably need to get to a point here.
GIMP-something.0 sounds pretty weird for a stable release...
I say it's time for a show of hands. My vote is for 2.0, because
there are likely to be lots of new bugs and
On Thu, 2003-06-19 at 12:14, David Neary wrote:
Sven Neumann wrote:
Yes, please. But we probably need to get to a point here.
GIMP-something.0 sounds pretty weird for a stable release...
I say it's time for a show of hands. My vote is for 2.0, because
there are likely to be lots of new
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 12:56:03PM +0200, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I still disagree on that, people are eagerly waiting for 2.0 for the
very features it should have. Unfortunately.
Are they?
I do. Others on this list do. It's up to you to make your opinion on
that.
I don't
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 12:14:30PM +0200, David Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I say it's time for a show of hands. My vote is for 2.0, because
My vote is for 1.x, or 2.0, if sven decides it on the grounds that we
need it for marketing. The other arguments simply don't overweight the
confusion I
Hi,
pcg( Marc)@goof(A.).(Lehmann )com writes:
When, if not now, do you want to increase the major version number?
When there is a major change (e.g. gegl, cmyk). Using another
toolkit is not a major change at all to me. Using the same internal
representation for images, having the same
* Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] [030619 17:18]:
Hi,
pcg( Marc)@goof(A.).(Lehmann )com writes:
When, if not now, do you want to increase the major version number?
When there is a major change (e.g. gegl, cmyk). Using another
toolkit is not a major change at all to me. Using the same
My point in this situation is that, given that version number
doesn´t matter all that much, why can´t we just be honest
with ourselves and call it 1.4? Look, nobody cares about
version numbers anymore. Let´s take the Linux kernel as
an example: version 2.2 got a lot more of media attention
than
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 05:09:57PM +0200, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, so replacing the approx. 8,000 lines of code in the base directory
with GEGL would be considered a major feature.
If we get all the other stuff we said would be in 2.0, yes.
The fact that the other 230,000
Hi,
pcg( Marc)@goof(A.).(Lehmann )com writes:
Well, from a user perspective, the improvement from using gtk2 over gtk1
is very nearly nil Even for me, the switch from gtk2 to gtk1 in itself
is not at all an important new feature or improvement.
I wonder why you keep talking about the
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 10:03:55 +0200
David Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since CVS has what amounts to a re-write of 1.2 (as opposed to
the modularisation which was envisaged way back at GIMPCon 2000),
we would need to be careful that we don't give the impression of
stability with an
Hi,
Marc kept stating that there are no user-visible changes in GIMP-1.3.
I really don't know how much time he spent with GIMP-1.3 but I doubt
that he is aware of the amount of changes that have been made. To
clarify things a bit and to justify a 2.0 version number for this
release, I made a
Sven Neumann wrote:
- New RGB-Indexed quantizer
Although this should generally be pretty good and better
than the old quantizer, I was hoping to do a nice long
tweaking'n'tuning session for this in the 1.3 timeframe, which is
where things get sexy. Unfortunately it didn't work out like
that
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 07:20:13PM +0200, Hans Breuer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Sven,
is it time to flame again ?
Please, although I am easily at flaming, I do not intend to do it, nor was
it my intent to put off Sven, who works _so_ much, nor is it useful to
start a flamewar with sven, who
On 18 Jun 2003, at 23:35, Sven Neumann wrote:
Hans Breuer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Actually a few magazines already know that the next stable
release is supposed to be 2.0 for some time already.
Perhaps I told one or even two people involved in the computer
magazine business about it
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 11:35:51PM +0200, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps I told one or even two people involved in the computer
magazine business about it when I tried to get some support for the
conference this summer.
What did you tell them, that gimp-2.0 will be released or
24 matches
Mail list logo
