On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 12:56:03PM +0200, Sven Neumann <sven@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I still disagree on that, people are eagerly waiting for 2.0 for the
> > very features it should have. Unfortunately.
>
> Are they?
I do. Others on this list do. It's up to you to make your opinion on
that.
> I don't really know what people are expecting from GEGL
CMYK, floating-point, programmable layer modes, dynamical effects, layer
trees...
> happened. When GEGL is used, users will probably not notice that the
> crappy code that provides the basis for pixel manipulations in the
This from the person who says the gtk+2 rewrite is the major feature
people are expecting. Woaw.
> >From all the people that addressed me and asked for CMYK support, only
> one so far was able to explain to me what benefits one can get from
> working in CMYK. All others would have made things worse since they
Well, it's not just CMYK of course. I am also of the opinion (that I
mentioend quite a lot of times), that working in CMYK is not at all the
problem, but interoperability is the key problem. postscript paths (For
clipping), and cmyk _bit_ format in files (because many programs intrepret
rgb as "CMY" or worse).
> You also mentioned integration with FilmGIMP or CinePaint.
Never did I use these words! I believe I didn't even quote them. ;) Who is
"you", in this case, again?
> That said, I don't think I can ensure you that we need 2.0 for the
> conference but I am still convinced that the amount of added features
> is worth it.
*sigh*, I am confused. Well, I offer you to decide wether 2.0 is worth it
from the fund-raising standpoint, and still state my opinion that 2.0 is
a disservice to gimp users, and no service to anybody except maybe a ego
push because so much work went into it.
> This release will definitely mark a new era of GIMP.
Well, it's exactly as was planned for 1.4 before.. and I really fail to
see the new era. My honest aplogies, but that's how I see it. We can rest
it here if you want, and agree to disagree. If you agree, I'll be quiet,
since I then said all that was to say from my side.
> When, if not now, do you want to increase the major version number?
When there is a major change (e.g. gegl, cmyk). Using another toolkit is
not a major change at all to me. Using the same internal representation
for images, having the same features, simply doesn't warrant the new major
number.
I mean, all the concepts in gimp-1.3 are the same as in 1.2, no user
visible major changes (yes, lots of small user visible improvements, but
none of them qualify as major change). I simply don't think that 100 small
improvememnts are one major improvement.
In addition, arguments like "but others have bumped their version number"
sound so extrenely fishy and dishonest to me that if such arguments are
brought forward as the main and principle arguments to bump the version, I
think there is ample reason to question them. "The others do it" is never
ever a sound or reasonable argument to me.
I hope the latter paragraph explains why I am opposed so much. It simply
sounds fishy to me.
Yet again, I let you decide wether it's important enough for the
fundraising issue. *That* is an ugly and difficult to digest argument, but
it concinves me.
--
-----==- |
----==-- _ |
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +--
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / pcg@xxxxxxxx |e|
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+
The choice of a GNU generation |
|
