Hi, David Neary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Personally I wouldn't be averse to calling the current CVS 2.0, > and having a 2.2 pretty quickly afterwards (say around Christmas) > as was done with GTK+ to say "All known bugs introduced in the > 2.0 release are fixed". I am glad you said that since that's what I had in mind as well. I just didn't want to go into details about the time after the release since I hope that we can get this sorted out at GimpCon. > The main point, of course, is that version numbering is irrelevant > to content, and arguing about it isn't getting us any closer to a > stable release, or a usable GeGL. Can we agree that the version > number isn't that important, call it something, and get on with > writing software? Yes, please. But we probably need to get to a point here. GIMP-something.0 sounds pretty weird for a stable release... Sven _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
