Raphaël Quinet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
According to the roadmap proposed a few weeks ago, we should be in
feature freeze and we should have released 2.0rc1 by now. Also, the
old web site was supposed to be replaced by the new one in order to be
prepared to support the new release.
None
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 12:32:28 +0200, Michael Natterer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Raphaël Quinet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
we are planning for
1.3.21 soon (not ready for 2.0rc1 yet)
We cannot make a 2.0 release candidate until libgimp is API frozen.
Apart from that, current CVS is more stable
Michael Natterer wrote:
I totally agree and still wonder why we still have that old website.
While we have good reasons to delay 2.0 release candidates, I fail
to see a single reason for further web site moving delays.
I never use gimp-1.2 anymore. Consider the lack of good reasons to move
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 12:24:12 -0400, Carol Spears [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael Natterer wrote:
I totally agree and still wonder why we still have that old website.
While we have good reasons to delay 2.0 release candidates, I fail
to see a single reason for further web site moving
According to the roadmap proposed a few weeks ago, we should be in
feature freeze and we should have released 2.0rc1 by now. Also, the
old web site was supposed to be replaced by the new one in order to be
prepared to support the new release.
None of this has happened: new features are still
Hi,
Raphal Quinet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I suggest to create that branch immediately after the 1.3.21 release.
What do you think?
We create a branch immidiately after 2.0 is released. We don't have
the resources to handle more branches. If you branch now (or after
1.3.21), we will never
Hi,
Sven Neumann wrote:
Raphaël Quinet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I suggest to create that branch immediately after the 1.3.21 release.
We create a branch immidiately after 2.0 is released. We don't have
the resources to handle more branches. If you branch now (or after
1.3.21), we will
