Branko Collin wrote:
> The trouble with the road to 1.4/2.0 was (if I, as a non-programmer, 
> see this correctly) that the whole of the GIMP had to be changed. It 
> was not possible to release 2.0 piecemeal, the change of 1.2 to 2.0 
> as the stable version had to be in one go.

Personally, I think we coould have developped some of the
features in the current HEAD outside the main repository, and
released something less featuresome earlier. But the code
reorganisation and GObjectification (the major change in this
release) was always going to take a long time. Particularly since
so few people were working on it.

> If I understand this correctly, this won't be the case with the 
> change to GEGL, and even if it will be, there will be plenty of time 
> to adapt to an upcoming GEGL.

There will be pain with the changeover to gegl. I think that if
we limit ourselves just to switching to gegl, we can get a
release with gegl pretty quickly after 2.2, though.

> Release dates are cool, and targets too, but in the end, if there's a 
> spiffy new feature, I want it in my GIMP.

Are you advocating a major release per feature? Or a thawing of
the stable release to allow features as well as bug fixes to go
in there? Or am I missing the point completely?


       David Neary,
       Lyon, France
Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to