Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: development questions
On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 08:42:00PM -0500, Michael J. Hammel wrote: As already have been pointed out, lot of talk has been going about 2.0 being the great change, and something else being in the middle. So IMHO going for 2.0 directly would cause a bit of confusion, so I do not see any real adventage about starting a number race. FWIW - I agree. 2.0 has already been discussed at length as being a target for GEGL support and there really isn't any need to jump revision numbers other than it makes the product sound mature. I'm also against changing the semantics of GIMP 2.0. It's already well-known as The GEGL GIMP with CMYK etc.. It is very hard to change such wide-spread information. And I don't see a real reason either. The switch to GTK2 is an argument, but I don't think version numbers need to match between GIMP and GTK (and GNOME maybe). Let's not invalidate lots of information out there in the net just for marketing purposes. We can save ourselves a lot of confusion. Another argument against the rename: IIRC the changes from 1.0 to 1.2 were also significant. The GIMP release-cycle is very long-term, so users will expect significant changes, if 1.4 get released - just because it took such a long time. Bye, Tino. -- * LINUX - Where do you want to be tomorrow? * http://www.tu-chemnitz.de/linux/tag/ ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: development questions
Hi, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tino Schwarze) writes: I'm also against changing the semantics of GIMP 2.0. It's already well-known as The GEGL GIMP with CMYK etc.. It is very hard to change such wide-spread information. And I don't see a real reason either. Such widespread information? There is one single document that is publically available that outlines a roadmap for the future of the GIMP. This document mentions a few numbers in order to give things a name to call them by. I don't see any problem in releasing a new document now that updates these numbers. The switch to GTK2 is an argument, but I don't think version numbers need to match between GIMP and GTK (and GNOME maybe). After all GTK+ is the GIMP toolkit. This is IMO a very good argument for calling the next GIMP release 2.0. Actually it's the only good argument that is out there (and I don't see any good one against it). Let's not invalidate lots of information out there in the net just for marketing purposes. We can save ourselves a lot of confusion. Another argument against the rename: IIRC the changes from 1.0 to 1.2 were also significant. The GIMP release-cycle is very long-term, so users will expect significant changes, if 1.4 get released - just because it took such a long time. I really believe that the current codebase is a significant change that warrants to increase the major release number. If you looked at the code you would have noticed that every single file was touched. Besides some of the basic functionality, the GIMP core and the user interface has been completely rewritten. There is not much in the app directory that resembles the old 1.2 code. If that's not worth an update in major release, I really don't know what would warrant it. Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: development questions
Hi, pcg( Marc)@goof(A.).(Lehmann )com writes: A major version should be reserved for major changes... There is no major change in the user-interface. (In the code, yes, the UI, no). Sorry, but I have to disagree here. I do indeed believe that there is a major change in the GIMP user interface. This change goes a long way further than the 1.0 to 1.2 change ever went. Actually I am a bit surprised since I didn't expect any controversial discussion on this subject. The 2.0 versionnumber for the next stable release has been an open secret for at least three months now and so far noone had expressed an opinion against it. I am not pissed off, I just didn't expect such a resistance now. Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: development questions
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 11:52:53AM +0200, Sven Neumann wrote: I'm also against changing the semantics of GIMP 2.0. It's already well-known as The GEGL GIMP with CMYK etc.. It is very hard to change such wide-spread information. And I don't see a real reason either. Such widespread information? There is one single document that is publically available that outlines a roadmap for the future of the GIMP. It's in the heads of the people. I guess, it's also on some web pages, written in books and magazines etc. Bye, Tino. -- * LINUX - Where do you want to be tomorrow? * http://www.tu-chemnitz.de/linux/tag/ ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: development questions
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 11:52:53AM +0200, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: well-known as The GEGL GIMP with CMYK etc.. It is very hard to change such wide-spread information. And I don't see a real reason either. Such widespread information? Try google with such harmless keywoards as gimp and 2.0.. you might be surprised how many people wait for the new 2.0 backend or other features. After all GTK+ is the GIMP toolkit. This is IMO a very good argument for calling the next GIMP release 2.0. Actually it's the only good argument that is out there (and I don't see any good one against it). Frankly, that makes no logical sense. Just because I wrote some linux-only software does not mean I should make my software version 2.4. A softwrae version should reflect the software's version, not the marketing behind it. You keep explaining tzhat this is a good argument, but people don't seem to be convinced. Why is it such a good argument? It's a very bad argument in most other cases, so why is it a good argument for the gimp? Especially, what's the logical connection between the version numbers of two independent projects? The same argument can be applied to any gtk+, especially gnome. I don't see the benefits, or the goodness, of having the same version number for all software packages. To the contrary, this will just confuse me, as vital information (is the version number the only thing that changed on many software packages) will be destroyed. that warrants to increase the major release number. If you looked at the code you would have noticed that every single file was touched. That's also not a good argument. interface has been completely rewritten. There is not much in the app directory that resembles the old 1.2 code. If that's not worth an update in major release, I really don't know what would warrant it. A major version should be reserved for major changes... There is no major change in the user-interface. (In the code, yes, the UI, no). I do believe that users will not be able to see any major changes. Again, don't get me wrong. I am not trying to diminish all the work that has gone into gimp-1.3, but I fail to see why a bigger version number will be of any practical help, as opposed to more confusion. It might be for egotistical reasons, after all, if I invested a lot of work into a release, I want to bump the version number up appropriately. But that's no service to the users of my module. Better use codenames, that works well with users. (I liked the road to 2.0 ;) -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | | ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: development questions
Hi, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tino Schwarze) writes: Such widespread information? There is one single document that is publically available that outlines a roadmap for the future of the GIMP. It's in the heads of the people. I guess, it's also on some web pages, written in books and magazines etc. Actually a few magazines already know that the next stable release is supposed to be 2.0 for some time already. Call it a cheap marketing trick, but we need to raise some public interest right now. A couple of computer magazines are planning articles about the upcoming GIMP release and the GIMP Developer Conference at the camp. I don't think we should be overly meek now. Give them something to write about, let's make it onto slashdot, get this thing going... Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] Re: development questions
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (2003-06-17 at 2122.23 +0200): So all we need is an even version number... All around GIMP, most notably with its toolkit GTK+, the 2.0 era has begun. Should we really go for 1.4? I don't think so and everyone me and Mitch talked to (for example on #gimp) agreed that the changes since 1.2 warrant the jump to 2.0. So unless anyone speaks up with good reasons against calling the next release GIMP 2.0, it will probably happen so. As already have been pointed out, lot of talk has been going about 2.0 being the great change, and something else being in the middle. So IMHO going for 2.0 directly would cause a bit of confusion, so I do not see any real adventage about starting a number race. To mark it as a lot have been done and it took a lot of time, there are some other numbers from 1.3 to 2.0 that are even too (ok, only three make sense, 1.4, 1.6 and 1.8). I find easier to explain that after 1.2 the next stable is not 1.4 but 1.6 (the bridge from old to new) or 1.8 (the path to 2.0 begins) than explaining that 2.0 is not the promised 2.0. The first half-explains itself, the later looks as a good way to waste time explaining to people. Already some time have been invested in the old naming plan, and there always be docs floating around talking about the mighty 2.0. It is just about communication, PR or whatever you want to name it, so the clearer, the better. Just my opinion, 1.6 or 1.8 sounds great, and there are no old news to rewrite. GSR PS: OK, maybe some places will have to s/1.4/1.whatever/g. PS2: Name it Hobble4? j/k Bad Sun joke. Sleep time, really. ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: development questions
On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 17:48, Guillermo S. Romero / Familia Romero wrote: As already have been pointed out, lot of talk has been going about 2.0 being the great change, and something else being in the middle. So IMHO going for 2.0 directly would cause a bit of confusion, so I do not see any real adventage about starting a number race. FWIW - I agree. 2.0 has already been discussed at length as being a target for GEGL support and there really isn't any need to jump revision numbers other than it makes the product sound mature. I would say that shorter release time frames might be considered once you do get to 2.0, but there isn't any real need to rush to that point. You have plans. They seem fairly good (you'll never get complete agreement on everything, but you do the best you can). Stick with those plans. Mozilla and Evolution are two big projects still in the 1.x range. Linux itself was in 1.x for quite some time. Getting to 2.x doesn't need to be pushed, IMHO (except if your goal is to push GEGL support integration). -- Michael J. Hammel The Graphics Muse [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.graphics-muse.com -- Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. -- Albert Einstein ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
