On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 09:45 -0500, Christopher Curtis wrote:

> Something to consider, I think, is momentum.  I think that people want
> to be part of a vibrant developer community.  If a project does not
> have this, it may be beneficial to create an artificial one by
> increasing the number of releases.  To this end, it may be wise to
> make future releases more "bite-sized":  2.6 implements CMS workflow
> and fixes 2.4 problems.  2.8 introduces Cairo rendering.  And then 3.0
> can integrate GEGL.

That's what we are targeting for with 2.6. It will be a short
development cycle with only very few changes. But there are people
waiting to be able to commit GEGL code into the GIMP tree. So we will
definitely not wait with that. The transition to GEGL will take a while
anyway and the user won't notice in the beginning anyway.

> Now, I'm not trying to be so bold as to propose a schedule, but it
> seems that if there were three or four releases this year - 2.4 now,
> then 2.6, 2.8, and maybe a 2.10 - that's roughly four months per
> release.  Asking people to "wait for the next release to include your
> plugin" doesn't sound so severe then.  The biggest burden I think
> would fall to the translators, which is something that developers just
> need to be sensitive to.

Four releases per year is impractical. We wouldn't get anything done
because we would be busy preparing releases all the time. Even the two
releases per year schedule that GNOME is running is considered to be too
short by most developers.

And we can't release 2.4 now. It may even take another four months
before we are there. Have a look at the bug reports on milestone 2.4. A
few of them can be postponed but there are still some major ones that
absolutely have to be addressed.


Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to