Hi, tino.schwarze@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (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 is one single document that is publically available that outlines a roadmap for the future of the GIMP. This document mentions a few numbers in order to give things a name to call them by. I don't see any problem in releasing a new document now that updates these numbers. > The switch to GTK2 is an argument, but I don't think version numbers > need to match between GIMP and GTK (and GNOME maybe). After all GTK+ is the GIMP toolkit. This is IMO a very good argument for calling the next GIMP release 2.0. Actually it's the only good argument that is out there (and I don't see any good one against it). > Let's not invalidate lots of information out there in the net just for > marketing purposes. We can save ourselves a lot of confusion. > Another argument against the rename: IIRC the changes from 1.0 to 1.2 > were also significant. The GIMP release-cycle is very long-term, so > users will expect significant changes, if 1.4 get released - just > because it took such a long time. I really believe that the current codebase is a significant change that warrants to increase the major release number. If you looked at the code you would have noticed that every single file was touched. Besides some of the basic functionality, the GIMP core and the user interface has been completely rewritten. There is not much in the app directory that resembles the old 1.2 code. If that's not worth an update in major release, I really don't know what would warrant it. Sven
