On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 11:35:51PM +0200, Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Perhaps I told one or even two people involved in the computer
> magazine business about it when I tried to get some support for the
> conference this summer.
What did you tell them, that gimp-2.0 will be released or that gimp-2.0
will have all those new features people expect for 2.0?
> I'm sorry but I need to sell this conference at the moment and everyone
> seems flat broke. We really could need some good marketing and instead
Who is "we"? A company? You are selling a conference? So the fact that you
mentioned the number 2.0 to (maybe) two magazine people means that this
version number must be used? Also, who is "we"? *I* certainly don't need
I am sorry, but I feel your arguments in favour of 2.0 get more and more
confusing, and rather long-winded. Especially if one considers that
magazines and websites already published that gimp-2.0 will have cmyk
support etc.. and this doesn't bind us in any way, either.
> you guys take this as an opportunity for flames?
Please calm down, I more than once told you that I am not flaming. You
are working yourself up into something here, really. No flame was
intended, just a discussion about the version number.
For some reason you are getting mad at this discussion, not the
arguments. Why is this so? Why are you asking for speaking up if you only
go mad at people who do? You'd better not have posted anything if you
don't want to hear any responses.
> impression that most the hits for "gimp 2.0" are caused by "gimp" used
> on the same page as "gtk+-2.0". What exactly do you want to prove by
> 116,000 hits on google?
Stop putting words in my or other peoples mouth, please. I don't want
to prove anything by 116,000 hits. I want to prove that the expection
for gimp-2.0 having some major new features like cmyk etc. is there,
and searches like "gimp 2", "gimp 2.0", "gimp cmyk" certainly are good
indications that a number of people and websites know about the not-at-all
secret plans of adding colourspace support and others for gimp-2.0.
Also, if you really want comparison by numbers, than the number of people
writing that gimp-2.0 will have cmyk is certainly larger than the number
of magazine people you talked to.
And this is no wonder, as this has been mentioned publicly a lot of
> > See above. BTW: do I have qualified to have an option ?
> BTW: Yes, indeed you do. What exactly makes you think you don't?
Your reaction, I guess. Asking for responses and then critizising people
for responsing at all.
Please don't take it personally. That's the last thing I or others want.
I'd be happy with a disucssion about version numbers, and I laid downmy
arguments, namely that there are no major features for a major version
number, and the added opinion that we don't need new major numbers just
because everything else has (becaus thta's just confusing people).
Other people have added that there are great expectations for gimp-2.0,
and I think that 1.6 or 1.8 or so would be a nice number telling people
"hey there, this was a hell LOT OF WORK!", without destroying all the
plans mentioned over the years.
I even think that not having added major new features, but cleaning up
the codebase and adding lots-needed bits here and there, is a good thing,
as it enables people to start implementing difficult new features such as
using gegl without having to add dirty hacks everywhere.
> Oh shit, I got one wrong. But wait, I'll put "Image templates" in as a
> new feature that I forget to listen.
Yes, and "swapfiles > 2GB" as probably a bugfix, not a feature at all,
just like 64 bit cleanlyness is a bugfix, and not a feature.
Let's not quarrel around features. If you insist that there are major
features qualifying 2.0, I do not really oppose.
However, I *do* oppose "marketing", "but gtk+ has it" and similar
arguments. I simply think it's unneccssary.
----==-- _ |
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +--
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e|
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+
The choice of a GNU generation |
Gimp-developer mailing list