Re: [Gimp-developer] version numbers
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 01:40:17PM +1000, Owen wrote: > On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 11:41:20 -0400 > Carol Spears <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > maybe we can jump it up to 2 simply because everyone seems to be > > involved again :) > > Follow Mr Knuth's technique > Call this one 1.4 which would be followed by > 1.41 then > 1.414 ... 1.4142136 ad infinitum Important: Never round up that last digit! Or the next version will be considered an earlier version - e.g. this would break RPM version number checking (1.41421356 < 1.4142136). > It's a cold, foggy grey miserable day...not much else to do :-) After all, we could drop that number and use the number of digits as the version. 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] version numbers
I say we just use 2.0 for the first stable tree using GEGL. This entire argument sucks, imho. The first stable tree using GEGL has been called 2.0 for so long, why call it anything else now? It isnt about GTK2, or about Gnome2, or about any thing else. Its just what someone started calling it, and it stuck. And yes, maybe its useless version number bloat, but who cares? Gimp has been 1.x for so long now, and GEGL is a huge step in gimp's development. When you change this much in a product, you up the major version number. On 19-Jun-2003, Owen wrote: > On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 11:41:20 -0400 > Carol Spears <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > maybe we can jump it up to 2 simply because everyone seems to be > > involved again :) > > Follow Mr Knuth's technique > Call this one 1.4 which would be followed by > 1.41 then > 1.414 ... 1.4142136 ad infinitum > > This has the advantages of > > a. being the square root of 2, the number so many want > b. The next version number will always be known.. > > > And when GEGL comes along, this will be an exponential jump, so the numbers will > begin at > 2.7 (which will the version of GTK+ at the time) > 2.71 ... 2.7182818 > > It's a cold, foggy grey miserable day...not much else to do :-) > > > > owen > -- > ___ > Gimp-developer mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer -- Patrick "Diablo-D3" McFarland || [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music." -- Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, Inc, 1989 ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] version numbers
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 11:41:20 -0400 Carol Spears <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > maybe we can jump it up to 2 simply because everyone seems to be > involved again :) Follow Mr Knuth's technique Call this one 1.4 which would be followed by 1.41 then 1.414 ... 1.4142136 ad infinitum This has the advantages of a. being the square root of 2, the number so many want b. The next version number will always be known.. And when GEGL comes along, this will be an exponential jump, so the numbers will begin at 2.7 (which will the version of GTK+ at the time) 2.71 ... 2.7182818 It's a cold, foggy grey miserable day...not much else to do :-) owen -- ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] version numbers
i use debian. debian seems to use what ever freaking version number they would like to. lets talk about that instead. maybe we can jump it up to 2 simply because everyone seems to be involved again :) carol -- The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up. ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
