On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 11:58:06 +0200, Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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 jump.
> You obviously didn't look at the code. Frankly, the libgimp API hasn't
> changed much but that's probably a good thing t'since it means that it
> is easy to migrate plug-ins and scripts. Apart from libgimp and some
> basic core functionality, the whole thing has been completely
> rewritten.

Yesterday, I was in favor of 2.0, but now I am not sure anymore.  Marc
and the others are right to some extent: from a user's point of view,
the changes in 1.3 compared to 1.2 are about as big as the changes from
1.0 to 1.2.

>From a developer's point of view, a lot of things have changed.  Many
parts of the code have been rewritten.  But from a user's point of
view, the visible differences are not that big.

Reasons for calling it 2.0:
- GTK+ is at 2.2 (maybe 2.4 by the time the next GIMP is out), so we
  would at least get the same major release number even if the minor
  number is different.
- This reflects the amount of changes that occured in the code (from a
  developer's point of view).

Reasons for calling it 1.4:
- Many users expect 2.0 to include support for 16-bit channels, CMYK,
  better color calibration, layer trees/masks/styles, and several
  other features.  This information has been published on various web
  sites and even printed in some magazines.
- The original plan was that 1.4 would consist in a re-write and
  clean-up of the code without introducing too many user-visible
  changes.  In fact, except for the timing and the part about the
  distribution of plug-ins, the original plan is still a good
  description of 1.3.x.
- The user-visible changes in this version are comparable to the
  transition from 1.0 to 1.2 (user's point of view)

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to