<pcg( Marc)@goof(A.).(Lehmann )com> writes:
>> 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 any marketing...
Marc, you may not need any marketing but I have been trying to raise
funding for gimpcon since february. I do believe that we, the GIMP
project, could need some more publicity.
Please don't overrate the stuff I said about magazines. All I said was
that we are considering to call it 2.0. That's it. I am not running
around spreading news that have not even been announced on the mailing
list. However the fact that we think about going for a 2.0 has been
around for so long that it certainly leaked to quite a few people
>> 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.
I said this in response to a mail from Hans who was IMO the only one
who wrote a flamish mail on this subject so far.
> 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
Sure, I don't wonder, after all that's what we told them 3 years
ago. Three years are a long time and noone will be surprised if we
changed our plans by now. It would certainly raise some interest (which
is good) but I don't see any point in holding up to what we said three
years ago only for the reason that we said it back then.
>> > 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.
Marc, please check who is being quoted and answered. Hans asked this.
> 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).
Cool, let's get on with a discussion then. IMO the changes are major
and I am pretty sure that the user-visible changes for a GEGL-based
GIMP will be smaller than the changes we introduced since 1.3. My
second argument is that I believe that GTK+, the GIMP toolkit, being
at version 2.x and GIMP being at version 1.x is very confusing to
people. Whenever a new GIMP 1.3 release is announced, people ask when
we will finally start to port it to 2.0. There aren't really so many
people out there that know about the plans for 2.0 we made three years
ago. Don't let google fool you; from the discussions I followed
lately, I came to the impression that people expect a GIMP 2.0
> Yes, and "swapfiles > 2GB" as probably a bugfix, not a feature at all.
It was too much of a major change to be done in the stable 1.2 tree,
so I think it can be called a new feature. But you are right, we don't
need to quarrel about details of the feature list I posted.
Gimp-developer mailing list