David Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I think that we could perhaps do the version bump in an organised
> way this time, at least?

What are you trying to say here? I don't remember any unorganized
version bumps.

> Perhaps have a 2.1.0 with a couple of weeks work (basically, the
> stuff which is waiting to be committed more or less now, but can't
> go into a 2.0 branch), and announce that it is the last release that
> will use gtk+ 2.2? Or even have a few releases, and do the version
> bump in (say) early March? You say "as early as possible" - I would
> argue that it's not realistic to bump versions until people have had
> a while to brace themselves.

We should wait for the gtk+-2.4 release and then wait another week or
two to give distributors a chance to prepare packages. The rule of
thumb in the past has been to wait for the package to appear in debian
testing which is a rather conservative distrubtion.

> What I would propose is that the GIMP CVS module have an app/gegl
> directory which is linked to the gegl module, so that doing a cvs
> co of the GIMP would also check out gegl.

This is insane. CVS modules cause nothing but trouble. If you want to
use GEGL, then depend on it. If you are afraid of this dependency,
don't do it then.

> It's not the seriously interested developers I'm worried about,
> but the casual ones who might eventually become serious
> developers, if we don't piss them off or make it hard for them to
> follow the GIMP development cycle. We need more people building
> from CVS than we had in 1.3.x, and we're not going to have that if
> we depend on bleeding-edge build tools or libraries.

Nooone said we want to do that. What are you talking about? We talk
about depending on GTK+-2.4 which will be the latest stable release of
the GIMP toolkit at the time we start to use it. You don't want us to
ignore the features it offers and use an unmaintained version instead,
do you?


Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to