On 12/14/06, Sven Neumann <sven@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 17:21 -0600, Clarence Risher wrote: > > Seems like tradition, every splash I can remember except 1.0 had a > > version number. The wording on the rules doesnt require it, but it > > seems to suggest it in more than one way. > > Would have been nice if you had replied to the list. Anyway, your reply > doesn't give a reason for the numbers to be, there even though I would > have been interested in hearing a good one. Sorry, I don't use many mailing lists without reply-to set, hard to remember to change the To when I reply here. I wasn't aware of the codified rules for splash images. Now that I have read them, I can see that you are right about the numbers not being required. But doing away with them seems to go against an unwritten policy that has been in effect for over 5 years. I am used to seeing the numbers every day when I start up 2.2 and 2.3, it is very helpful in remembering which version I am working with. Of course, the lack of numbers will make it somewhat evident with 2.4, but I fear it might be less obvious once I am using 2.5, and when 2.6 comes out if it continues the new trend. I DO like the new artwork, aside from its lack of version numbering. _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
