On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 11:58:06 +0200, Sven Neumann <sven@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Frankly, I won't be oposed very much to calling it gimp-2.0, but > > everybody is expecting some _major_ release for 2.0, and 1.2 => 2.0, > > while having many enhancements, is not, in my opinion, much bigger > > than the 1.0 => 1.2 jump. > > You obviously didn't look at the code. Frankly, the libgimp API hasn't > changed much but that's probably a good thing t'since it means that it > is easy to migrate plug-ins and scripts. Apart from libgimp and some > basic core functionality, the whole thing has been completely > rewritten. Yesterday, I was in favor of 2.0, but now I am not sure anymore. Marc and the others are right to some extent: from a user's point of view, the changes in 1.3 compared to 1.2 are about as big as the changes from 1.0 to 1.2. >From a developer's point of view, a lot of things have changed. Many parts of the code have been rewritten. But from a user's point of view, the visible differences are not that big. Reasons for calling it 2.0: - GTK+ is at 2.2 (maybe 2.4 by the time the next GIMP is out), so we would at least get the same major release number even if the minor number is different. - This reflects the amount of changes that occured in the code (from a developer's point of view). Reasons for calling it 1.4: - Many users expect 2.0 to include support for 16-bit channels, CMYK, better color calibration, layer trees/masks/styles, and several other features. This information has been published on various web sites and even printed in some magazines. - The original plan was that 1.4 would consist in a re-write and clean-up of the code without introducing too many user-visible changes. In fact, except for the timing and the part about the distribution of plug-ins, the original plan is still a good description of 1.3.x. - The user-visible changes in this version are comparable to the transition from 1.0 to 1.2 (user's point of view) -Raphaël
