On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 09:22:23PM +0200, Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So all we need is an even version number...  All around GIMP, most
> notably with its toolkit GTK+, the 2.0 era has begun. Should we really
> go for 1.4?

Well, all the agruments I see in favour of 2.0 are always of the form
"well, evereybody else has 2.0". Well, gtk+2 is at 2.2, msoffice is at
2003 etc..

I don't think making up numbers just for the marketing is honest or
useful for users.

Frankly, I won't be oposed very much to calling it gimp-2.0, but everybody
is expecting some _major_ release for 2.0, and 1.2 => 2.0, while having
many enhancements, is not, in my opinion, much bigger than the 1.0 => 1.2

So... I'd beg for a little more honesty in version numbering, and a
little less marketing. A gimp-2.0 with lots of very nice but minor
improvements (where is the modularity? where is support for cmyk? where
are the programmable layer effects? and macro capability? even the fact
that most perl scripts need not a modification to run does not show major
cleanups in that part) is good for initial reaction, but people will aks
themeselves where all the great things planned for 2.0 have gone.  (Yes,
I like the text tool, I etxremely like the undo history.. but that is all
nothing major).

I really don't think it qualifies as 2.0. That doesn't mean to diminish
the work (which is impressive), but I think just randomly jumping on
version numbers to have the same version number as everybody else doesn't
help - it's just confusing, as version numbers become utterly meaningless.

Just my 0.02µ¢, I feel that I had to make this point, don't kill me :)

      -----==-                                             |
      ----==-- _                                           |
      ---==---(_)__  __ ____  __       Marc Lehmann      +--
      --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ /       [EMAIL PROTECTED]      |e|
      -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\       XX11-RIPE         --+
    The choice of a GNU generation                       |
Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to