Re: [Gimp-developer] useless plead for honest evrsion numbers :)
Hi, Christopher W. Curtis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Something of a clincher for me is: has the file format changed? If I save an XCF under 1.4 and I can still open it under version 1.2, then it seems more like a point release. This doesn't add much to the discussion but I felt I could not let this stand uncommented. Yes, you can create XCF files with 1.3 that cannnot be read by GIMP-1.2. This is nothing to be proud of but there are new features in GIMP-1.3 (namely new layer modes) that 1.2 does not support and unfortunately this means that the file format is not 100% backwards compatible. Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] useless plead for honest evrsion numbers :)
Hi, Robert L Krawitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IMHO, this is not a good reason for numbering it 2.0. By now, GTK+ stands independently of the GIMP; it's maintained by different people, the releases aren't synchronized, and indeed (even in 1.2) the GIMP has its own widget set layered on top of GTK+. Huh? Well, of course we have build widgets on top of the toolkit we use. What are you trying to prove here? I fail to see your point. Whatever the origins of the name, at present GTK+ is no more the GIMP toolkit than Gimp-Print is the Print plug-in for the GIMP. I don't agree. I do think that GIMP and GTK+ are in fact still more tightly coupled than you receive it. GIMP developers are constantly contributing to GTK+ and they do take part in decisions made for GTK+. At the same time GTK+ developers are giving the GIMP developers a hand when it comes to improving and debugging The GIMP. The two projects are not as diverged as perhaps gimp-print and gimp. Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
RE: [Gimp-developer] useless plead for honest evrsion numbers :)
(Yes, I like the text tool, I etxremely like the undo history.. but that is all nothing major). But the undo history is not a new 1.3 feature, it was introduced by me in one of the 1.1 testing series and has thus been in all the 1.2 versions. Austin ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] useless plead for honest evrsion numbers :)
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 09:55:52AM +0100, Austin Donnelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I like the text tool, I etxremely like the undo history.. but that is all nothing major). But the undo history is not a new 1.3 feature, it was introduced by me in one of the 1.1 testing series and has thus been in all the 1.2 versions. That means either a) I don't pay attention to new features so I should not comment or b) Even less major features for a major release, or both. I see now, it's not mentioned under File=Dialogs as all the other dialogs, thus I kept not finding it. *sigh* -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ 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] useless plead for honest evrsion numbers :)
Hi, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ( Marc) (A.) (Lehmann ) writes: Well, all the agruments I see in favour of 2.0 are always of the form well, evereybody else has 2.0. Well, gtk+2 is at 2.2, msoffice is at 2003 etc.. I give shit on msoffice but GTK+ is the GIMP ToolKit and we will have a hard time to explain why even it's major release numbers diverge. Frankly, I won't be oposed very much to calling it gimp-2.0, but everybody is expecting some _major_ release for 2.0, and 1.2 = 2.0, while having many enhancements, is not, in my opinion, much bigger than the 1.0 = 1.2 jump. You obviously didn't look at the code. Frankly, the libgimp API hasn't changed much but that's probably a good thing t'since it means that it is easy to migrate plug-ins and scripts. Apart from libgimp and some basic core functionality, the whole thing has been completely rewritten. Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] useless plead for honest evrsion numbers :)
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 11:58:06AM +0200, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: well, evereybody else has 2.0. Well, gtk+2 is at 2.2, msoffice is at 2003 etc.. I give shit on msoffice but GTK+ is the GIMP ToolKit and we will have a hard time to explain why even it's major release numbers diverge. Pardon? Why would you ever have a problem explaining why version numbers of *different* packages *differ*? You don't even have a problem of explaining why version numbers for single files differ, even less so for different packages. That GTK+ is the GIMP ToolKit is not at all of any concern, after all, gimp is the minority of applications using it. GTK+ has evolved. IF you want to tie the version numbers, better make it a single package. You obviously didn't look at the code. You obviously haven't read my mail. Really, I don't see why you are so pissed off... I don't need to look at the code to see that there are no major changes, and certainly none of the changes planned for 2.0 for a long time. is easy to migrate plug-ins and scripts. Apart from libgimp and some basic core functionality, the whole thing has been completely rewritten. Well, if that would be all, then there would be no reason to upgrade for users at all, as nothing has changed for them. -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ 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] useless plead for honest evrsion numbers :)
Hi, pcg( Marc)@goof(A.).(Lehmann )com writes: I give shit on msoffice but GTK+ is the GIMP ToolKit and we will have a hard time to explain why even it's major release numbers diverge. Pardon? Why would you ever have a problem explaining why version numbers of *different* packages *differ*? You don't even have a problem of explaining why version numbers for single files differ, even less so for different packages. That GTK+ is the GIMP ToolKit is not at all of any concern, after all, gimp is the minority of applications using it. GTK+ has evolved. IF you want to tie the version numbers, better make it a single package. That is a lame argument, really. GIMP and GTK+ used to be a single package, it was called GIMP. There is still a close relationship between the two. Both have come far and IMO both deserve a 2 as major version number. The switch from GTK+-1.2 to 2.0 was a lot smaller than what we have to offer for GIMP now. You obviously haven't read my mail. Really, I don't see why you are so pissed off... I don't need to look at the code to see that there are no major changes, and certainly none of the changes planned for 2.0 for a long time. Sorry, but I have to disagree. Almost of all the GUI changes that were planned for 2.0 are there. What is missing is a proper redesign of the inner core. That is IMO a much smaller change than what we have achieved sine GIMP-1.2. It will certainly be less visible to the user. Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] useless plead for honest evrsion numbers :)
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 11:58:06 +0200, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Frankly, I won't be oposed very much to calling it gimp-2.0, but everybody is expecting some _major_ release for 2.0, and 1.2 = 2.0, while having many enhancements, is not, in my opinion, much bigger than the 1.0 = 1.2 jump. You obviously didn't look at the code. Frankly, the libgimp API hasn't changed much but that's probably a good thing t'since it means that it is easy to migrate plug-ins and scripts. Apart from libgimp and some basic core functionality, the whole thing has been completely rewritten. Yesterday, I was in favor of 2.0, but now I am not sure anymore. Marc and the others are right to some extent: from a user's point of view, the changes in 1.3 compared to 1.2 are about as big as the changes from 1.0 to 1.2. From a developer's point of view, a lot of things have changed. Many parts of the code have been rewritten. But from a user's point of view, the visible differences are not that big. Reasons for calling it 2.0: - GTK+ is at 2.2 (maybe 2.4 by the time the next GIMP is out), so we would at least get the same major release number even if the minor number is different. - This reflects the amount of changes that occured in the code (from a developer's point of view). Reasons for calling it 1.4: - Many users expect 2.0 to include support for 16-bit channels, CMYK, better color calibration, layer trees/masks/styles, and several other features. This information has been published on various web sites and even printed in some magazines. - The original plan was that 1.4 would consist in a re-write and clean-up of the code without introducing too many user-visible changes. In fact, except for the timing and the part about the distribution of plug-ins, the original plan is still a good description of 1.3.x. - The user-visible changes in this version are comparable to the transition from 1.0 to 1.2 (user's point of view) -Raphaël ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] useless plead for honest evrsion numbers :)
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 11:58:06AM +0200, Sven Neumann wrote: Well, all the agruments I see in favour of 2.0 are always of the form well, evereybody else has 2.0. Well, gtk+2 is at 2.2, msoffice is at 2003 etc.. I give shit on msoffice but GTK+ is the GIMP ToolKit and we will have a hard time to explain why even it's major release numbers diverge. I don't think we'd need to explain anything. GIMP 1.4 depends on GTK2. Period. In some way, it's separate software. It's not distributed with The GIMP, it just happens to be called The GIMP ToolKit for historical reasons. ;-) 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] useless plead for honest evrsion numbers :)
On 18 Jun 2003, at 13:04, Sven Neumann wrote: The switch from GTK+-1.2 to 2.0 was a lot smaller than what we have to offer for GIMP now. IMHO, Guillermo Romero's suggestion of making it 1.6 or 1.8 is a nice compromise. -- branko collin [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] useless plead for honest evrsion numbers :)
Hi, Branko Collin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The switch from GTK+-1.2 to 2.0 was a lot smaller than what we have to offer for GIMP now. IMHO, Guillermo Romero's suggestion of making it 1.6 or 1.8 is a nice compromise. Hmm, it should be either 1.4 because it's into people's head already or 2.0 because it's worth a major number increase and because of GTK+-2.x. There doesn't seem to be any good argument for 1.6 or 1.8. Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] useless plead for honest evrsion numbers :)
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 13:10:26 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Rapha=EBl?= Quinet [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reasons for calling it 2.0: - GTK+ is at 2.2 (maybe 2.4 by the time the next GIMP is out), so we would at least get the same major release number even if the minor number is different. IMHO, this is not a good reason for numbering it 2.0. By now, GTK+ stands independently of the GIMP; it's maintained by different people, the releases aren't synchronized, and indeed (even in 1.2) the GIMP has its own widget set layered on top of GTK+. Whatever the origins of the name, at present GTK+ is no more the GIMP toolkit than Gimp-Print is the Print plug-in for the GIMP. -- Robert Krawitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tall Clubs International -- http://www.tall.org/ or 1-888-IM-TALL-2 Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project lead for Gimp Print --http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net Linux doesn't dictate how I work, I dictate how Linux works. --Eric Crampton ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] useless plead for honest evrsion numbers :)
On Tuesday 17 June 2003 18:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ( Marc) (A.) (Lehmann ) wrote: where are the programmable layer effects? Hmm..are these the ones I did suggest I could do a couple of weeks ago? I am working on them...unless the freeze is quite soon, It may very well go into 1.4/2.0 . Although in 1.4.1/2.1 they will be quite more usable. -- Este e-mail é, exceto pelas partes citadas de outros e-mails, copyright(c) de João Sebastião de Oliveira Bueno. Nenhuma cópia deste e-mail ou parte do mesmo pode existir nas dependências de, ou em posse de funcionários, de associações protetoras de direitos autorais Brasileiras, dos Estados Unidos da América, ou de outros países. Em particular essa exceção do direito de leitura e posse deste e-mail se extende à ABRA, ABPI, ABES, BSA, RIAA e MPAA. Violadores estão infringindo as leis internacionais de direitos autorais e sujeitos às penalidades cabíveis. Você pode re-utilizar, emendar, acrescentar suas palavras e citar e re-enviar qualquer parte do mesmo, desde que essa nota seja preservada e se não pertencer a alguma das entidades supracitadas. ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
