Hi, tino.schwarze@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Tino Schwarze) writes: > I did a more specific search: > http://www.google.com/search?q=gimp+2.0+-gtk+-GTK+GEGL+-gimp-developer+-gegl-developer > I excluded pages mentioning GTK plus the developer lists. Still 160 > hits, some on major sites. The main argument against naming it "2.0" is > that 2.0 is already known as "the all new, GEGL-based GIMP with > colospace support etc.". You can get 160 hits on google for whatever statement you would like to make. It is a stupid attempt to try to prove anything with a search engine that has billions of pages archived. > I'm afraid, there would be lots of people asking "where is CMYK support > and where is GEGL?" It is very hard to alter such widespread knowledge. > It could get a real PITA. As I said in another mail already, I believe that it will be a major PITA to explain why it GIMP uses GTK+-2.x and still is not called 2.0. I could surely come up with a google search to proove this but this is getting ridiculous. Anyone who followed the discussions on various sites that announced GIMP-1.3 releases lately, will have noticed that people keep asking for a GIMP port to GTK+-2.x. Going for GIMP 2.0 will IMO be less confusing than sticking to 1.4 just because we stated so 3 years ago. Sven
