Hi, On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 12:58 AM, Derek Mortimer <m...@aaa.co.uk> wrote: > Perhaps I may add a perspective, please. > > Using LibreOffice, one of the major benefits of that package is that it will > open and save as the same nearly all document formats, both old and new. > When one has document files 18 years old, this is a major benefit, giving > continuity to one's work. > > Moving on to a new format gives significant advantages, but if it makes > obsolete valid and useful past work, isn't that somewhat arrogant to tell > users that past work is out of date and cannot be opened in the new version > of GIMP? > > After all there are many Old Masters created in analogue format (paint?). If > they were created in digital format, should they be thrown away, just > because they were created in the most advanced format available at the time, > which is now out of date?
I'm sorry, but this is completely off-topic. Of course old works are perfectly opened with newer versions of GIMP and this will stay so. Why would we break older files? If you find examples otherwise, then this is a bug, and we would welcome bug reports for us to fix the issue. So to make sure things are clear: we are talking about files made with newer GIMP using new features which cannot be opened with older GIMP (since older GIMP did not have these features). Jehan > HTH > > -----Original Message----- From: Jehan Pagès > Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 9:58 PM > To: firstname.lastname@example.org > Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] opening 2.9.3 file in 2.8.14 (NOT) > > > Hi, > > On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 9:29 PM, Akkana Peck <akk...@shallowsky.com> wrote: >> >> Michael Natterer writes: >>> >>> On Tue, 2015-12-08 at 22:56 +0100, Jernej Simončič wrote: >>> > I've seen that, but what I specifically meant was a File -> Export >>> > option >>> > that writes XCF compatible with older GIMP versions, possibly losing >>> > data >>> > in the process (which is why it'd be Export, not Save). >>> >>> I keep wondering why we would want that at all. >>> >>> - as soon as we have 2.10, every older version is obsolete, >>> it's not like one would have to buy 2.10 and must stick >>> with 2.8 because it's not affordable >>> >>> So why bother with compat saving at all? >> >> >> No one has to stick with 2.8 for cost reasons. But most people, >> at least on Linux, will have to upgrade their OS to get all the >> libraries needed to run the new GIMP. Historically, it can take >> six months or longer after a release before most Linux users can >> run the new GIMP version, and a few users (on "stable" releases) >> may wait a lot longer than that. > > > Yes but the question still remains: if you want to share a XCF, this > is usually for team working (or similar reasons involving others > wanting to edit your work). Then if you used a new feature, how do you > pass your work to someone with another version? > > For instance if you were using high bit depth, then if you "save" > without high bith depth in order to have a 2.8-compatible XCF, the > person you shared with simply has a different image. Then if this > persons edits this image, and sends it back to you, then what? You now > have a 8-bit version. If that is not a problem, why bother from the > start with high bit depth? Oppositely if high bit depth is too > important to you for even considering losing it, there is simply no > other solution: everyone must have a recent version of GIMP able to > process high bit depth. > > I took this feature as an example, but that is also true for any other > feature which would require an update in the XCF format. > > Jehan > > P.S.: maybe we could have an extension standard within XCF which could > allow older versions to load newer XCF files using unknown feature and > displaying warnings but still loading a "partly broken" file. This > could be an interesting update, why not. But right now, this does not > exist. And it would not be possible for every kind of feature (once > again, the high bit depth changes the image data in too much a deep > way to make this easy). > > P.P.S.: this said, I agree with Mitch that there are very few (good) > reasons to keep an old version of GIMP. And I don't think we should > encourage this. As for the package management systems which are indeed > slow to update on many Linux distributions, I have good hope towards > the xdg-app project which would make such a worry a thing of the past. > > >> ...Akkana >> _______________________________________________ >> gimp-user-list mailing list >> List address: email@example.com >> List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list >> List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list > > _______________________________________________ > gimp-user-list mailing list > List address: firstname.lastname@example.org > List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list > List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list > _______________________________________________ > gimp-user-list mailing list > List address: email@example.com > List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list > List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list _______________________________________________ gimp-user-list mailing list List address: firstname.lastname@example.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list