David Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> This roadmap should not be seen as set in stone, but I agree with
> Freedman Dyson that it is better to be precise and wrong than to
> be vague. If we set ourselves vague targets, then we will arrive
> at them a long time after we'd like.

So what?

> So, without further ado, here's the updated roadmap... are there
> any comments?

I'd like to note that I personally very much dislike the fact that you
published these fixed dates. They haven't been discussed as such and I
don't think it is helpful to set such dates at all.

I do believe that it is important to publish dates for feature and API
freezes since developers need to know about them and the earlier they
know the better. But it is IMO a very bad thing to publish release
dates. It would have been OK to say that we target a 2.0 release this
month and that 2.2 is supposed to be out in summer, perhaps even in
June. However publishing a fixed date for each and every release that
we will possibly do during the next months is IMO the worst thing we
could have done. Let alone the fact that release dates for 2.0.1 or
even 2.0.2 are completely unreasonable since they depend on facts we
cannot know yet.

I would like to let people know that I will not respect any of these
dates. The GIMP project is already putting up enough pressure without
people trying to nail us down on release dates. Things would be
different if someone payed a handful of GIMP developers. They could be
responsible for the milestones then and I could understand why someone
would want to see such a list. However as long as GIMP is a project
that is driven by voluntary contributions, we should IMO avoid to
publish such lists. 

If the GIMP developers decide that such list of published milestones
is required for the future development, then I am going to look for
other projects to contribute to. After all this is supposed to be fun.

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to