On 18 Jun 2003, at 23:35, Sven Neumann wrote: > Hans Breuer <Hans@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > "Actually a few magazines already know that the next stable > > release is supposed to be 2.0 for some time already." > > Perhaps I told one or even two people involved in the computer > magazine business about it when I tried to get some support for the > conference this summer. I'm sorry but I need to sell this conference > at the moment and everyone seems flat broke. We really could need some > good marketing and instead you guys take this as an opportunity for > flames? Please come back with arguments as soon as you have settled > down. Sven, I think you're right to assume that major technical changes, even if they are invisible to the user, warrant major version numbers. I will go even so far as to say that technical changes are the only thing that should drive version number changes. However, I also agree with those who say that GIMP 2.0 is in the minds of the people as the one that will bring CMYK, GEGL and other such goodies. With smaller apps it wouldn't be so important. Who cares whether Audacity (a fine tool, BTW!) jumps to 1.2 or 2.0? But GIMP is a well known program, and a lot of users know the meaning of its version numbers. This is all IMHO. -- branko collin collin@xxxxxxxxx
