> What do you think?

I think it's a great idea to have shorter deveopment cycles. It looks 
like the project is more active and alive.
I've heard a lot of people saying that gimp was almost dead, while I was 
testing 2.3.x series almost monthly. But people tend to think that the 
activity of a project is measured by the release cycle of stable 
versions, so this idea will for sure draw more attention to the project 
(and luckily more developers).

The only problem I see with this idea is the GEGL thing.  I'm not a 
coder, but it looks like a quite radical change in the gimp core, so if 
that's a goal for 2.6 and the development cycle will be shorter, maybe 
there is no place for further additions. And if 2.6 has only the 
migration to GEGL and no extra features, people will say again: gimp is 

Many of the frequently asked features need the GEGL core (or as it has 
been discussed before, it's pointless to spend much time trying to code 
them for the current core when the same work using GEGL will be more 
straightforward). I mean Layer Effects, CMYK color and 16 bpc, improved 
image scaling etc.
otoh, there are some features that can be implemented without the GEGL 
migration: Fine tunning of some of the existing tools (angle and axis 
contrstaints for paths and transform tools, or visibility in the scale 
and rotate tools, for instance), interface changes, improvements in the 
text tool, layer grouping, etc.

So, an important decision must be taken, imo. Plan the 2.6 version as a 
"new core" version (with important improvements in the technical area, 
but maybe not that visible for the final users), or a "new features" 
version. If this isn't defined, there is a risk to fall in a long 
development cycle again.

That's my opinion, of course.
Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to