Le jeu 19/06/2003 à 10:55, Sven Neumann a écrit :
> 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 also agree that coming up with a google search is ridiculous.

> > 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.

The problem is not that 2.0 == Gegl was stated 3 years ago, but that
everyone (ie: magazines, websites) stated it since these 3 last years.

As a Gimp user I am particullary enthusiastic with the changes
introduced in the 1.3 branch, but I think in this scope it would make
much more harm to call it 2.0 than 1.4, even if it is based on GTK+2.

But don't be affraid, whatever your decision will be, ppl here will
support you. And ppl are confident in you, and the way you have (will)
managed the Gimp since all this time.

If you (and the other main gimp developpers) finaly decide to call it
2.0, I think you should really insist, in your press release, on the
fact that this realase was so good that you finally decided to call it
2.0 instead of 1.4. And that 2.0 will be 3.0. This would be a really
positive and understable way to explain the change.



Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to