[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tino Schwarze) writes:
> I did a more specific search:
> I excluded pages mentioning GTK plus the developer lists. Still 160
> hits, some on major sites. The main argument against naming it "2.0" is
> that 2.0 is already known as "the all new, GEGL-based GIMP with
> colospace support etc.".
You can get 160 hits on google for whatever statement you would like
to make. It is a stupid attempt to try to prove anything with a search
engine that has billions of pages archived.
> I'm afraid, there would be lots of people asking "where is CMYK support
> and where is GEGL?" It is very hard to alter such widespread knowledge.
> It could get a real PITA.
As I said in another mail already, I believe that it will be a major
PITA to explain why it GIMP uses GTK+-2.x and still is not called 2.0.
I could surely come up with a google search to proove this but this is
getting ridiculous. Anyone who followed the discussions on various
sites that announced GIMP-1.3 releases lately, will have noticed that
people keep asking for a GIMP port to GTK+-2.x. Going for GIMP 2.0
will IMO be less confusing than sticking to 1.4 just because we stated
so 3 years ago.
Gimp-developer mailing list