Hey Axel, On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 03:55:48PM +0100, Axel Wernicke wrote: > I don't agree, > > having the same numbering would just bundle our release-cycle very > close to the GIMP releases. What if GIMP releases 2.4.25 and the > manual didn't change since 2.4.24 at all. Do we a new release just > because GIMP did? An if we don't the manual seems to be "behind" > compared to the GIMP. Oh sorry - this must be a misunderstanding. The coupling is only for the major number (like 2.2 or the upcoming 2.4). The last number would be our release number then ... > I'd really suggest to be careful with the aim to do the same version > numbering for the manual and GIMP itself. Why not stick to what Roman > wrote in the Release Notes: ... manual 0.12 for GIMP 2.2 ... it says > it all. Yeh - but the problem is, that most people don't read the release notes (and sometimes even can't read because they're fetching the release directly from the FTP or whatever). > greetings, lexA > > ps.: may be we can associate a major version number for the manual to a major version of GIMP. Something like > > GIMP 2.2.x documentation is gimp-doc 1.x > GIMP 2.4.x documentation is gimp-doc 2.x Thats, what is intended. Because there are major changes between every stable GIMP version, the package name should reflect this as well. Greetings, -- Roman Joost www: http://www.romanofski.de email: romanofski@xxxxxxxx
Attachment:
pgpD3Beqi2ZJg.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Gimp-docs mailing list Gimp-docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-docs
