[EMAIL PROTECTED] (2003-06-17 at 2122.23 +0200):
> 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? I don't think so and everyone me and Mitch talked to (for
> example on #gimp) agreed that the changes since 1.2 warrant the jump
> to 2.0.  So unless anyone speaks up with good reasons against calling
> the next release GIMP 2.0, it will probably happen so.

As already have been pointed out, lot of talk has been going about 2.0
being the great change, and something else being in the middle. So
IMHO going for 2.0 directly would cause a bit of confusion, so I do
not see any real adventage about starting a number race.

To mark it as "a lot have been done and it took a lot of time", there
are some other numbers from 1.3 to 2.0 that are even too (ok, only
three make sense, 1.4, 1.6 and 1.8). I find easier to explain that
after 1.2 the next stable is not 1.4 but 1.6 ("the bridge from old to
new") or 1.8 ("the path to 2.0 begins") than explaining that 2.0 is
not the "promised" 2.0.

The first half-explains itself, the later looks as a good way to waste
time explaining to people. Already some time have been invested in the
old naming plan, and there always be docs floating around talking
about the mighty 2.0. It is just about communication, PR or whatever
you want to name it, so the clearer, the better.

Just my opinion, 1.6 or 1.8 sounds great, and there are no old news to

PS: OK, maybe some places will have to s/1.4/1.whatever/g.
PS2: Name it Hobble4? j/k Bad Sun joke. Sleep time, really.
Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to