Hello everybody,

Roman Joost wrote:

Hi!

After more than eight months of work, the documentation team is proud to announce a new release of the user manual for GIMP 2.2. This release features a lot of improvements, in particular:

I take the opportunity of this announcement to ask one my long standing question: what GIMP version is the manual targeted at?

While contributing to the italian translation I currently refer to the development version (and as time progresses the differences with the stable one get more and more evident). Should I take the stable version as a reference?

Cheers and Best Wishes for Christmas everybody.

Hi Alessandro,

-------- Original-Nachricht -------- Datum: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 10:36:48 +0100 Von: Alessandro Falappa
An: GIMP Docs
Betreff: Re: [Gimp-docs] ANNOUNCE: Gimp User Manual 0.11 released

Hello everybody,

...

release of the user manual for GIMP 2.2. This release features a lot of improvements, in particular:

I take the opportunity of this announcement to ask one my long standing question: what GIMP version is the manual targeted at?

well, if you read what Roman wrote, then you'll find the answer. The GIMP manual is targeted to the most recent stable version.

While contributing to the italian translation I currently refer to the development version (and as time progresses the differences with the stable one get more and more evident). Should I take the stable version as a reference?

yes, you of course should always use a stable version as reference. If you know about changes in the upcoming version you should leave a comment in the manuals source. Please do this as xml comment, so the content in question is not automatically used in the current version of the manual. As soon as 2.4 is "stable enough", which means that it must reach feature and GUI stability, we can declare the current 2.2 manual as finished and do a fresh start for 2.4 (based on the 2.2 manual of course).

Greetings, lexA

Cheers and Best Wishes for Christmas everybody.

Hi Axel,
thanks for your valuable considerations. I will have to review my contributions taking into account this fact and I think I will have to check my past contributions where I accidentally uncommented some paragraphs targeted at the future GIMP 2.4, please apologise.

Just yesterday, while translating the Map filters, I found that the Van Gogh (LIC) filter in GIMP 2.3 has been moved to the Artistic category. Other filters (more notably those belonging to the color category) have been reshuffled as well in the development version.

Axel Wernicke wrote:

Hi Alessandro,

While contributing to the italian translation I currently refer to the development version (and as time progresses the differences with the stable one get more and more evident). Should I take the stable version as a reference?

yes, you of course should always use a stable version as reference. If you know about changes in the upcoming version you should leave a comment in the manuals source. Please do this as xml comment, so the content in question is not automatically used in the current version of the manual. As soon as 2.4 is "stable enough", which means that it must reach feature and GUI stability, we can declare the current 2.2 manual as finished and do a fresh start for 2.4 (based on the 2.2 manual of course).

Greetings, lexA

Greetings

Hi.

I agree, there should be versions of the manual that matches versions of the application, so if for some weird reason a user has to use an old release, she can read the right docs.

My two cents.

2006/12/15, Roman Joost :

On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 02:54:09PM +0100, Alessandro Falappa wrote:

Hi Axel,
thanks for your valuable considerations. I will have to review my contributions taking into account this fact and I think I will have to check my past contributions where I accidentally uncommented some paragraphs targeted at the future GIMP 2.4, please apologise.

Just yesterday, while translating the Map filters, I found that the Van Gogh (LIC) filter in GIMP 2.3 has been moved to the Artistic category. Other filters (more notably those belonging to the color category) have been reshuffled as well in the development version.

From the next releases on, we'll replace the current numbering with adding the GIMP version (like gimp-help-2.2.12 or similar). So, this confusion should be sorted out then.

Greetings, --
Roman Joost
www: http://www.romanofski.de
email: romanofski at gimp.org

I don't agree,

having the same numbering would just bundle our release-cycle very close to the GIMP releases. What if GIMP releases 2.4.25 and the manual didn't change since 2.4.24 at all. Do we a new release just because GIMP did? An if we don't the manual seems to be "behind" compared to the GIMP.

I'd really suggest to be careful with the aim to do the same version numbering for the manual and GIMP itself. Why not stick to what Roman wrote in the Release Notes: ... manual 0.12 for GIMP 2.2 ... it says it all.

greetings, lexA

ps.: may be we can associate a major version number for the manual to a major version of GIMP. Something like

GIMP 2.2.x documentation is gimp-doc 1.x GIMP 2.4.x documentation is gimp-doc 2.x

-------- Original-Nachricht -------- Datum: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:32:04 -0300 Von: "Manuel Qui?ones"
An: gimp-docs at lists.xcf.berkeley.edu Betreff: Re: [Gimp-docs] ANNOUNCE: Gimp User Manual 0.11 released

Hi.

I agree, there should be versions of the manual that matches versions of the application, so if for some weird reason a user has to use an old release, she can read the right docs.

My two cents.

2006/12/15, Roman Joost :

On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 02:54:09PM +0100, Alessandro Falappa wrote:

Hi Axel,
thanks for your valuable considerations. I will have to review

my

contributions taking into account this fact and I think I will have to check my past contributions where I accidentally uncommented some paragraphs targeted at the future GIMP 2.4, please apologise.

Just yesterday, while translating the Map filters, I found that the

Van

Gogh (LIC) filter in GIMP 2.3 has been moved to the Artistic category. Other filters (more notably those belonging to the color category)

have

been reshuffled as well in the development version.

From the next releases on, we'll replace the current numbering with adding the GIMP version (like gimp-help-2.2.12 or similar). So, this confusion should be sorted out then.

Greetings, --
Roman Joost
www: http://www.romanofski.de
email: romanofski at gimp.org

_______________________________________________ Gimp-docs mailing list
Gimp-docs at lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-docs

_______________________________________________ Gimp-docs mailing list
Gimp-docs at lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-docs

Hello everybody,
in my humble opinion there should be a way to communicate to the user an association between the manual and the version of the GIMP the manual refers to. This become a necessity for the authors/translators who are working to track the development version features in order to release a manual at the same time as the application (or shortly after).

I agree with you on the adoption of a major numbering scheme that at least allows to link a lineage of versions of the manual with a corresponding lineage of versions of the main application. It seems a good compromise between clarity and necessity (or lack) of updates.

Axel Wernicke wrote: ...

ps.: may be we can associate a major version number for the manual to a major version of GIMP. Something like GIMP 2.2.x documentation is gimp-doc 1.x GIMP 2.4.x documentation is gimp-doc 2.x

Cheers

Hi,

On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 15:55 +0100, Axel Wernicke wrote:

having the same numbering would just bundle our release-cycle very close to the GIMP releases. What if GIMP releases 2.4.25 and the manual didn't change since 2.4.24 at all. Do we a new release just because GIMP did?

I don't think that Roman tried to suggest that. He suggested that the major and minor versions should match. The micro version number should of course be independent of the GIMP release.

I suggest that you don't change your version numbering immidiately but wait until the first version of the user manual for GIMP 2.4 is released. That can become gimp-help-2.4.0 then.

Sven

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

Hi all,

Am 16.12.2006 um 10:06 schrieb Sven Neumann:

Hi,

On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 15:55 +0100, Axel Wernicke wrote:

having the same numbering would just bundle our release-cycle very close to the GIMP releases. What if GIMP releases 2.4.25 and the manual didn't change since 2.4.24 at all. Do we a new release just because GIMP did?

I don't think that Roman tried to suggest that. He suggested that the major and minor versions should match. The micro version number should of course be independent of the GIMP release.

I suggest that you don't change your version numbering immidiately but wait until the first version of the user manual for GIMP 2.4 is released. That can become gimp-help-2.4.0 then.

[x] OK, then I agree

greetings, lexA

Sven

- ---
Live is like a chocolate box, you never know what you wanna get... GPG Signatur auf http://wernicke-online.net/Impressum/ pr?fen

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFFhC18R9mXLVsAbiQRAtH1AKC9+6ig2faZ2UKaiMlc1JOGx5JH9ACgsqOZ oehQECZH1NIiFMiuGLfFcqw=
=YAxG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Hello, I generally lurk here but this question of "how to convey both version and relation" is interesting.

Consider a slight change in the format to make it easier to understand

gimp-help-2.2-1

In my experience, Roman is spot on. If a 1:1 version mapping requires look up, or remembering even the simplest algorithm (e.g. gimp-2.4.x => gimp-help-1.4.x), many or most will not see the correlation, and not spend the time to look it up. Especially those the change is intended to help.

Axel's confusion around mapping the micro version number shows yet another stumbling block. The issue being that one schema is being used to express different information:

gimp-2.2.3 => "gimp program", "major v2", "minor v2", "micro v3" gimp-help-2.2.1 => "gimp program, major v2, minor v2", "help documents", "version 1"

Changing the format may be enough to make the relation clear:

gimp-help-2.2-1 gimp-help-2.2-2

Current parsers will continue to recognize it, though interpret every release corresponding to a gimp release as a separate project, and each change as a major release.

xxx-2.2-1 => " gimp-help-2.2", "major 1" xxx-2.2-2 => "gimp-help-2.2", "major 2" xxx-2.4-1 => "gimp-help-2.4", "major 1"

Hardly a major issue, but feels odd to me too, I suppose that's because we don't' see many projects that are so tightly coupled to another. I think package managers use a similar scheme though (e.g. rpms and whatnot).

Sven's suggestion of waiting until the next gimp release is very sensible.

...Chad

Am 16.12.2006 um 10:06 schrieb Sven Neumann:

On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 15:55 +0100, Axel Wernicke wrote:

having the same numbering would just bundle our release-cycle very close to the GIMP releases. What if GIMP releases 2.4.25 and the manual didn't change since 2.4.24 at all. Do we a new release just because GIMP did?

I don't think that Roman tried to suggest that. He suggested that the major and minor versions should match. The micro version number should of course be independent of the GIMP release.

I suggest that you don't change your version numbering immidiately but wait until the first version of the user manual for GIMP 2.4 is released. That can become gimp-help-2.4.0 then.

-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /lists/gimp-docs/attachments/20061216/82672095/attachment.html

Hi,

On Sat, 2006-12-16 at 16:43 -0500, Chad McHenry wrote:

Changing the format may be enough to make the relation clear:

gimp-help-2.2-1 gimp-help-2.2-2

That's probably not a good idea as many packaging systems rely on version numbers not including hyphens.

Sven