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 maga
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 keyw
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 widesp
Hi,
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
fu
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 i
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 a
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
[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
