Branko Collin writes:
 > I have not seen any announcement on www.gimp.org or this list, that 
 > is why I am asking: is GIMP for Windows 1.2.3 official?

Umm, define "official"? Is GIMP for (pick your random Unix system)
official? Which of the prebuilt GIMPs for Solaris (I assume there are
several) is official? IMHO, the official GIMP release is the source
release. 

I am just a person who makes prebuilt binaries available for Windows,
and somebody else then makes an installer out of them. (I also happen
to be the guy who did most of the porting to Windows, but that's
irrelevant IMHO.) There are dozens of GIMP packagings for typical
Linux distributions, for instance, and none of them is "official"
other than from *that distribution's* point of view. Thus, *my*
prebuilt GIMP builds are official for *me*. As if that meant anything?

 > Also: does this mean the GIMP for Windows' bugs that were still open 
 > are now resolved? I filed the snoise bug report, but have not seen 
 > that bug report closed in Bugzilla.

Sorry, I know I am a bit lazy in checking bugzilla. The problem you
were seeing was caused by that described in Bug#67386, and yes, that
has been fixed. (That fix, however, is not in CVS, as it is somewhat
ugly, or at least the comments I got about that bug report indicated
it might be frowned upon, and I didn't want to take the chance of
delaying the official GIMP 1.2.3 (source) release any further back
then when I did it. See the link to the diffs from
www.gimp.org/win32/downloads.html.)

 > If so, I would like to send out a press-release about this to digital 
 > photography magazines.

Please do, but tell them it's their job to determine how useful the
software is to users... They can't just expect some
marketing-department-created press release praising the software and
listing its features, from which to copy-paste ;-)

--tml

_______________________________________________
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Reply via email to