On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 10:03:55 +0200
David Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since CVS has what amounts to a re-write of 1.2 (as opposed to
> the modularisation which was envisaged way back at GIMPCon 2000),
> we would need to be careful that we don't give the impression of
> stability with an untested program. The new .0 version number
> says that the program may be unstable, but that it is considered
> good to go for production work. That is, in my opinion, the case.
What ? You mean that Gimp 2.0 won't give the user what you have
written and more of that won't be stable ? It's not serious...
This will be very confusing for people who explain for years and
years that gimp 2.0 will be ... what you have written, and for other
GimpPeople. Who will trust GimpPeople now ? You should really
considerer that the Gimp Community will loose some credibility.
Furthermore this probably will give lot of arguments to Gimp detractors,
why they could not say now that Gimp2 was only born to make definitvly
obsolete the_gimp104_fork_that_nobody_here_know_it_exists and no other
good reasons ?
Sorry for my english,
Gimp-developer mailing list