On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 08:42:00PM -0500, Michael J. Hammel wrote:

> > 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.
> FWIW - I agree.  2.0 has already been discussed at length as being a
> target for GEGL support and there really isn't any need to jump revision
> numbers other than "it makes the product sound mature."  

I'm also against changing the semantics of "GIMP 2.0". It's already
well-known as "The GEGL GIMP with CMYK etc.". It is very hard to change
such wide-spread information. And I don't see a real reason either.
The switch to GTK2 is an argument, but I don't think version numbers
need to match between GIMP and GTK (and GNOME maybe).

Let's not invalidate lots of information out there in the net just for
marketing purposes. We can save ourselves a lot of confusion.
Another argument against the rename: IIRC the changes from 1.0 to 1.2
were also significant. The GIMP release-cycle is very long-term, so
users will expect significant changes, if 1.4 get released - just
because it took such a long time.

Bye, Tino.

             * LINUX - Where do you want to be tomorrow? *
Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to