On 2 January 2014 16:05, Michael Natterer <mitch@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2014-01-02 at 00:48 +0100, Ofnuts wrote: >> In the usual V.R.M numbering, the situation above is typically when you >> change the version number (and maybe the file extension)... because my >> point here is not the (completely understandable) incompatibilities, it >> their understatement by calling the next version 2.10. > > It's called 2.10 because it's binary and source compatible to 2.x. > We did not remove any functions, we only deprecated. That's the > only thing that counts, not how much has changed behind the > public API. This means that plugins/scripts that worked in 2.8 should work in 2.10 and if things break it is considered a bug. So please report such issues in bugzilla! -- Jon Nordby - www.jonnor.com _______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list List address: gimp-developer-list@xxxxxxxxx List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list
