David Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Personally I wouldn't be averse to calling the current CVS 2.0,
> and having a 2.2 pretty quickly afterwards (say around Christmas)
> as was done with GTK+ to say "All known bugs introduced in the
> 2.0 release are fixed".
I am glad you said that since that's what I had in mind as well. I
just didn't want to go into details about the time after the release
since I hope that we can get this sorted out at GimpCon.
> The main point, of course, is that version numbering is irrelevant
> to content, and arguing about it isn't getting us any closer to a
> stable release, or a usable GeGL. Can we agree that the version
> number isn't that important, call it something, and get on with
> writing software?
Yes, please. But we probably need to get to a point here.
GIMP-something.0 sounds pretty weird for a stable release...
Gimp-developer mailing list