Dave Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> >  - Do a 2.2 release in about three months.
> I think that's unrealistically short at this stage. There are people
> who have said that they want to do some concrete and long-standing
> TODO items, and 6 weeks to 2 months is not enough time to get most
> of those done and debugged properly.

IMHO we should rather try to finish what has started already and get
these new features to our users quickly. 2 months should be sufficient
to get that done. Whatever cannot be achieved in this time will have
to wait for the next release then (which could be by the end of the

> One example of something which would definitely miss 2.2 if we
> release in June is libpdb.

libpdb is being developed outside of The GIMP. As soon as it is ready
it shouldn't take more than a few days to add it as an optional
plug-in API. You cannot replace the current system with it anyway
since we don't want to break the plug-in API for 2.x.

> and I doubt that a preview widget would make it in either (it would
> depend on the amount of free time David Odin has, and how well he
> can co-ordinate with Ernst).

Same goes here. If we can settle on a design and an API in time, then
it shouldn't be a problem to get the code in. If not, it will have to
wait till 2.4.

> Setting up a 3 month release cycle sets us up for GTK+ 2.4
> migration, committing outstanding features with patches attached,
> and maybe re-arranging the menus again. I don't see any major
> features going in in such a short cycle.

Exactly. It would mean that we would be able to deliver a GIMP2 that
uses the new GTK+ file-selector, we could improve our menus by using
GtkAction and we could finish the outstanding text and path tool
issues. If libpdb, the preview widget or any other features are ready
in time, they can go in as well. Sounds like a good plan to me.

> Plus one of the objectives of 2.2 was to have complete coverage for
> docs - that seems unrealistic for June.

What docs are you refering to? 

> I would prefer to see us set ourselves up for a 6 month cycle and
> stick to it, rather than a 3 month cycle that we know is going to
> end up as 6 months in the end.

If you are going to put a revamped PDB, the preview widget and a
couple more things on our feature list, then you risk not to be able
to stick to the 6 month cycle. For this reason, I'd rather like to go
for a very short release cycle this time. Let's see how this works out
and it would give us the chance to discuss new stuff on GimpCon.

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to