On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 11:52:53AM +0200, Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Such widespread information?
Try google with such harmless keywoards as "gimp" and "2.0".. you might be
surprised how many people wait for the new 2.0 backend or other features.
> After all GTK+ is the GIMP toolkit. This is IMO a very good argument
> for calling the next GIMP release 2.0. Actually it's the only good
> argument that is out there (and I don't see any good one against it).
Frankly, that makes no logical sense. Just because I wrote some linux-only
software does not mean I should make my software version 2.4. A softwrae
version should reflect the software's version, not the marketing behind
it.
You keep explaining tzhat this is a good argument, but people don't seem
to be convinced. Why is it such a good argument? It's a very bad
argument in most other cases, so why is it a good argument for the gimp?
Especially, what's the logical connection between the version numbers of
two independent projects?
The same argument can be applied to any gtk+, especially gnome. I don't
see the benefits, or the "goodness", of having the same version number
for all software packages. To the contrary, this will just confuse me, as
vital information (is the version number the only thing that changed on
many software packages) will be destroyed.
> that warrants to increase the major release number. If you looked at
> the code you would have noticed that every single file was touched.
That's also not a good argument.
> interface has been completely rewritten. There is not much in the app
> directory that resembles the old 1.2 code. If that's not worth an
> update in major release, I really don't know what would warrant it.
A major version should be reserved for major changes... There is no major
change in the user-interface. (In the code, yes, the UI, no).
I do believe that users will not be able to see any major changes.
Again, don't get me wrong. I am not trying to diminish all the work that
has gone into gimp-1.3, but I fail to see why a bigger version number will
be of any practical help, as opposed to more confusion.
It might be for egotistical reasons, after all, if I invested a lot of
work into a release, I want to bump the version number up appropriately.
But that's no service to the users of my module.
Better use codenames, that works well with users. (I liked "the road to
2.0" ;)
--
-----==- |
----==-- _ |
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +--
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e|
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+
The choice of a GNU generation |
|
_______________________________________________
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
