My point in this situation is that, given that version number doesn´t matter all that much, why can´t we just be honest with ourselves and call it 1.4? Look, nobody cares about version numbers anymore. Let´s take the Linux kernel as an example: version 2.2 got a lot more of media attention than 2.0.
Sven, if you want to raise funds for the GIMPCon, why don´t you tell your magazine friends that GIMPCon will be the place for the exclusive world premiere of the new stable version of the GIMP? Then you, or anybody else, can plan and write a cool lecture for the presentation. And after it, it can be made available for download worldwide or something like that. You can also write a long article for them about the Convention. They usually pay for that. There are a lot of ways to make money without compromising the integrity of a project.
A new road map (or release plan) will have to be written no matter if we call the next release 1.4 or 2.0 - and changing a three year old release plan is something that most people involved with software will understand. I say we go for 2.0 - and, as mentioned elsewhere on this list, plan for a quick 2.2 bug-fix release later this year.
I think this is wrong in terms of marketing strategy. Version 2.0 must be reserved for a especially stable and groundbreaking realease. If the long awaited GIMP 2.0 is inmediatelly followed by a bugfix, what would you think of the developers? I can tell you what I´d think: That they were only worried about the "millenarism" of the number and that they probably wanted to make The GIMP look mature at the eyes of non-expert users. That´s what I would say. And reading what some of you think about the issue, I guess I would be right.
In Spain we have a saying that suits this situation: el buen paño en el arca se vende. It means that the perfect marketing strategy is a good and reliable product.
José Manuel García-Patos Madrid
