Sven Neumann wrote:
Don't get me wrong. I think your schedule is reasonable and we should
definitely publish a roadmap but IMO it shouldn't include any dates.
what about sufficiently vague date?
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
just wanted to let you know that the tree seems to pass 'make
distcheck' now. Well, at least up to the point very late in the
process where it used to break for quite a while already... I don't
want to delay 1.3.19 any longer, so the tree is basically fine for a
release. Perhaps the NEWS
On 26 Aug 2003, at 20:53, David Neary wrote:
Sven Neumann wrote:
David Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Here is a roadmap with some meat on it (solid dates for
milestones and other stuff) - it's pretty aggressive,
particularly with respect to a 2.2 release next year.
[...]
Don't
Branko Collin wrote:
The trouble with the road to 1.4/2.0 was (if I, as a non-programmer,
see this correctly) that the whole of the GIMP had to be changed. It
was not possible to release 2.0 piecemeal, the change of 1.2 to 2.0
as the stable version had to be in one go.
Personally, I think
Hi,
Sven Neumann wrote:
David Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Here is a roadmap with some meat on it (solid dates for
milestones and other stuff) - it's pretty aggressive,
particularly with respect to a 2.2 release next year.
I really like the idea of setting a date for a feature
Hi,
David Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Here is a roadmap with some meat on it (solid dates for
milestones and other stuff) - it's pretty aggressive,
particularly with respect to a 2.2 release next year.
I really like the idea of setting a date for a feature freeze early.
This allows
