My point in this situation is that, given that version number
doesn´t matter all that much, why can´t we just be honest
with ourselves and call it 1.4? Look, nobody cares about
version numbers anymore. Let´s take the Linux kernel as
an example: version 2.2 got a lot more of media attention
Sven, if you want to raise funds for the GIMPCon, why don´t
you tell your magazine friends that GIMPCon will be the place
for the exclusive world premiere of the new stable version of
the GIMP? Then you, or anybody else, can plan and write a
cool lecture for the presentation. And after it, it can be made
available for download worldwide or something like that. You
can also write a long article for them about the Convention.
They usually pay for that. There are a lot of ways to make
money without compromising the integrity of a project.
A new road map (or release plan)
will have to be written no matter if we call the next release 1.4 or 2.0
- and changing a three year old release plan is something that most
people involved with software will understand.
I say we go for 2.0 - and, as mentioned elsewhere on this list, plan for
a quick 2.2 bug-fix release later this year.
I think this is wrong in terms of marketing strategy. Version 2.0
must be reserved for a especially stable and groundbreaking realease.
If the long awaited GIMP 2.0 is inmediatelly followed by a bugfix,
what would you think of the developers? I can tell you what I´d think:
That they were only worried about the "millenarism" of the number and
that they probably wanted to make The GIMP look mature at the eyes of
non-expert users. That´s what I would say. And reading what some
of you think about the issue, I guess I would be right.
In Spain we have a saying that suits this situation: el buen paño en el
arca se vende. It means that the perfect marketing strategy is a good and
José Manuel García-Patos
Gimp-developer mailing list