From: Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 14:15:25 +0200
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
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
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 co
On 06/18/03 07:37, Sven Neumann wrote:
> "Branko Collin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> 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 incr
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 diff
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
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]
__
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 ha
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 t
Hi,
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 p
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
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
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 h
> (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
___
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 . Althou
15 matches
Mail list logo
