Alexandre Prokoudine (Monday, 28. December 2009) > On 12/19/09, Ulf-D. Ehlert wrote: > > Using the branch after releasing html packages doesn't make any > > sense to me. > > Really? :) Really. ;-) We are still documenting GIMP-2.6; gimp-2-6-0 was just a temporary branch to assure that source files didn't change and thus give translators a chance to finish their translations. > Let's see. We have a stable 2.6 version of GIMP and unstable 2.7 > that will become v2.8. So we are dealing with two branches to > document. Only the GIMP developers have to deal with two (or more) main branches. We (the documentation authors and translators) did not work parallel on two main branches for the last few years. > In case we are going to release docs for 2.8 around > actual 2.8 release, how on Earth are we supposed to provide > updates for 2.6 all this time if not by working on two branches? > :) Correct me if I'm wrong, but when we started to write and translate docs for GIMP-2.6, we didn't provide updates for GIMP-2.4 docs any more. And we had really problems to provide html packages for GIMP-2.6... Of course, we *could* start with a new main branch for GIMP-2.8 docs. But your question was: Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 11:35:17PM +0300, Alexandre Prokoudine: [...] > what branch should I be working on in case of subsequent releases > for GIMP 2.6? Since there is no branch for 2.8, the only possible answer is IMO: work on master. Ulf
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Gimp-docs mailing list Gimp-docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-docs
