On 26 Aug 2003, at 20:53, David Neary wrote: > Sven Neumann wrote: > > David Neary <dneary@xxxxxxx> writes: > > > Here is a roadmap with some meat on it (solid dates for > > > milestones and other stuff) - it's pretty aggressive, > > > particularly with respect to a 2.2 release next year. [...] > > Don't get me wrong. I think your schedule is reasonable and we > > should definitely publish a roadmap but IMO it shouldn't include any > > dates. [...] > I feel that dates create a sense of urgency... 2.0 in December > gets people thinking in the back of their minds that there's 4 > months left to release. Put solid dates on there, and suddenly if a > bug isn't classified by September 8th, it's not going to be fixed by > 2.0, there are events associated with the near future. The trouble with the road to 1.4/2.0 was (if I, as a non-programmer, see this correctly) that the whole of the GIMP had to be changed. It was not possible to release 2.0 piecemeal, the change of 1.2 to 2.0 as the stable version had to be in one go. If I understand this correctly, this won't be the case with the change to GEGL, and even if it will be, there will be plenty of time to adapt to an upcoming GEGL. May I suggest, therefore, that major new stable releases be produced every time a few major features are added or a few major changes are made? You are now able to break free from the mindset that ruled the change from 1.2 to 2.0, and that basically made the GIMP a cathedral in a world full of bazaars. Release dates are cool, and targets too, but in the end, if there's a spiffy new feature, I want it in my GIMP. -- branko collin collin@xxxxxxxxx
