Branko Collin writes: > I have not seen any announcement on www.gimp.org or this list, that > is why I am asking: is GIMP for Windows 1.2.3 official? Umm, define "official"? Is GIMP for (pick your random Unix system) official? Which of the prebuilt GIMPs for Solaris (I assume there are several) is official? IMHO, the official GIMP release is the source release. I am just a person who makes prebuilt binaries available for Windows, and somebody else then makes an installer out of them. (I also happen to be the guy who did most of the porting to Windows, but that's irrelevant IMHO.) There are dozens of GIMP packagings for typical Linux distributions, for instance, and none of them is "official" other than from *that distribution's* point of view. Thus, *my* prebuilt GIMP builds are official for *me*. As if that meant anything? > Also: does this mean the GIMP for Windows' bugs that were still open > are now resolved? I filed the snoise bug report, but have not seen > that bug report closed in Bugzilla. Sorry, I know I am a bit lazy in checking bugzilla. The problem you were seeing was caused by that described in Bug#67386, and yes, that has been fixed. (That fix, however, is not in CVS, as it is somewhat ugly, or at least the comments I got about that bug report indicated it might be frowned upon, and I didn't want to take the chance of delaying the official GIMP 1.2.3 (source) release any further back then when I did it. See the link to the diffs from www.gimp.org/win32/downloads.html.) > If so, I would like to send out a press-release about this to digital > photography magazines. Please do, but tell them it's their job to determine how useful the software is to users... They can't just expect some marketing-department-created press release praising the software and listing its features, from which to copy-paste ;-) --tml
