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 users that past work is out of date and cannot be opened in the new version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 which is now out of date?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: gimp-user-list@gnome.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 - as soon as we have 2.10, every older version is obsolete,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:    gimp-user-list@gnome.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:    gimp-user-list@gnome.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:    gimp-user-list@gnome.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:    gimp-user-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list

Reply via email to