Nathael Pajani wrote: > > You are making a comparison to the Linux kernel that is completely inadequate > Point of view. The whole point was about stable interfaces, and saying to the > users to "move back to the previous version if they did not like the changes > (what if kernel developers started to say you that ?)", but no more arguing > about this, it seems everybody missed the point. > Hi, I think the point made is clear and always was, but I don't think it holds water. Changing the kernel interface in an incompatible way would typically require large amounts of code to be rewritten, while changing the GIMP user interface in "incompatible" ways requires no code rewrites at all. Note, again, that the GIMP _programming_ interface is carefully being kept backwards compatible for the same reason the significant parts of the kernel user space API is, but a user interface does not have the same problem of backwards compatibility. As long as it is improving, most people will be happy with the changes. And as far as I can tell from almost obsessively having sought up and read comments on and reviews of GIMP 2.6 on various sites and forums for a long time now, most people think that GIMP 2.6 was an improvement UI wise and that we are heading in the right direction. BR, Martin _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
