Hans Breuer wrote:
> >To clarify things a bit and to justify a 2.0 version number for this
> >release, I made a compressed version of the NEWS file as found in the
> >1.3 tree. So here's a list of (mostly user-visible) changes. I'm sure
> >I still missed quite a few things...
>
> I could comment on every single feature, but if you just reread your
> own list you should be able to see that there is nothing major beside
> the huge rewrite which IMHO only justifies the .0 number as in
> 'beware of totally new misbehaviour' :-)
Here's the point I think we should be focussing on. The GIMP core
has been re-written. This means that there have been lots of bugs
introduced, and many old ones backed out. If we use a .4 minor
version number (or any 1.x version number), we risk giving the
impression that this is a stable point-release, a continuation of
the 1.2 branch, with stable interfaces, stable internals and the
rest.
Since CVS has what amounts to a re-write of 1.2 (as opposed to
the modularisation which was envisaged way back at GIMPCon 2000),
we would need to be careful that we don't give the impression of
stability with an untested program. The new .0 version number
says that the program may be unstable, but that it is considered
good to go for production work. That is, in my opinion, the case.
<snip>
That said, much like the earlier discussions over licencing
issues, I find the whole issue a pointless waste of time. I do
not think that the version number makes a great deal of
difference, and I don't believe there will be a public outcry
among the GIMP using public just because we use 2.0 without
having operation pipes and CMYK.
Personally I wouldn't be averse to calling the current CVS 2.0,
and having a 2.2 pretty quickly afterwards (say around Christmas)
as was done with GTK+ to say "All known bugs introduced in the
2.0 release are fixed".
The main point, of course, is that version numbering is irrelevant
to content, and arguing about it isn't getting us any closer to a
stable release, or a usable GeGL. Can we agree that the version
number isn't that important, call it something, and get on with
writing software?
By the way, what's the current story with PuPUS? Is it abandoned,
or will it get released at some stage post-1.3+?
Cheers,
Dave.
--
David Neary,
Lyon, France
E-Mail: bolsh@xxxxxxxx
