On 06/18/03 07:37, Sven Neumann wrote:
> "Branko Collin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> IMHO, Guillermo Romero's suggestion of making it 1.6 or 1.8 is a
>> nice compromise.
> Hmm, it should be either 1.4 because it's into people's head already
> or 2.0 because it's worth a major number increase and because of
> GTK+-2.x. There doesn't seem to be any good argument for 1.6 or 1.8.
I really hate to pollute this discussion further, but I just wanted to,
firstly, thank Sven (and everyone else) for all their work on porting
the GIMP to GTK2. This was no doubt as much of an effort as going from
the 0.5x series to the 0.99.x series.
However, I just wanted to give my opinion from more of an end-user
perspective. Firstly, the 1.3 codebase seems to have a lot more polish
to it than the current 1.2. But, the feel isn't that different, and I
agree that many of the "new features" are bugfixes. Sadly, a lot of the
work done upgrading the codebase simply won't empower the end user that
much more because the workflow and featureset isn't changed "radically
enough" (for lack of a better way to phrase it).
The GIMP isn't much closer to prepress than it was before. It isn't
closer to GEGL or Cinepaint, or many of the other much anticipated
features. It's (I ceratinly hope) in a better position to do this stuff
because of the rewrite, but the end user doesn't see any of that. They
just see a few new features and some slicker dialogs. Nothing here is
"groundbreaking", as it were.
Now, my personal feelings are those of the user: the new release could
certainly be called "1.4" and I wouldn't think the person picking the
version number was crazy. If I saw it called "2.0" and I used it, I
would think, "Hmm ... that seems like a bit of a stretch". Something of
a "clincher" for me is: has the file format changed? If I save an XCF
under "1.4" and I can still open it under version 1.2, then it seems
more like a point release.
However, why does the GIMP need to follow kernel style version numbers,
or GTK version numbers? I also think that "1.5" is a good number. To
me this means "This was a major effort, but it's still going to feel or
behave like the 1.x series," which I find quite fitting. To say the
version should be "2.0" because GTK+ is at version 2 I think is also
wrong, because you can't keep these in sync, and there's no reason to
try. Toolkits like GTK tend to stabilize and move slowly. When the
next version of the GIMP has GEGL and CMYK and custom gamuts and 64bit
RGBA with animations and filters to load/save .SWF files, are we going
to call it 2.2 simply because GTK+ is still stuck at version 2?
So to summarize, let GTK+ declare whatever versions it wants and let
others fixate on even-stable and odd-development cycles; call this thing
1.5, go drink some beer, and come back ready to code up version 1.90
with all the cool core enhancements that'll subsume Cinepaint, POV-Ray,
Macromedia, and Photoshop. =)
Gimp-developer mailing list