RSS/Atom feed Twitter
Site is read-only, email is disabled
  1. Chat
  2. Useful links
  3. Polls

Featured content

New thread on GIMP 1.3+

This discussion is connected to the gimp-developer-list.gnome.org mailing list which is provided by the GIMP developers and not related to gimpusers.com.

This is a read-only list on gimpusers.com so this discussion thread is read-only, too.

13 of 13 messages available
Toggle history

Please log in to manage your subscriptions.
New thread on GIMP 1.3+ David Neary 19 Jun 21:44
  New thread on GIMP 1.3+ Adam D. Moss 19 Jun 21:52
  New thread on GIMP 1.3+ Henrik Brix Andersen 19 Jun 21:52
  New thread on GIMP 1.3+ Guillermo S. Romero / Familia Romero 19 Jun 22:08
  New thread on GIMP 1.3+ Steinar H. Gunderson 19 Jun 22:11
  New thread on GIMP 1.3+ Nathan Carl Summers 19 Jun 22:13
   New thread on GIMP 1.3+ Sven Neumann 20 Jun 10:56
  New thread on GIMP 1.3+ Jakub Steiner 19 Jun 22:43
  New thread on GIMP 1.3+ Daniel Egger 20 Jun 11:47
   New thread on GIMP 1.3+ Marco Wessel 20 Jun 12:10
    New thread on GIMP 1.3+ Joao S. O. Bueno 20 Jun 21:00
  New thread on GIMP 1.3+ Raphaël Quinet 20 Jun 13:27
  New thread on GIMP 1.3+ Raymond Ostertag 21 Jun 15:12
David Neary
2003-06-19 21:44:01 UTC (almost 21 years ago)

New thread on GIMP 1.3+

Hi all,

At this stage, everyone has had their say on the version number thing. Personally I'm surprised there is so much fuss. But at this stage we all know where we all stand.

I'm starting a new thread to try to accomplish 2 things. 1) The death of all the other "next version" threads (I think there are either 2 or 3), and
2) A quick poll of the people concerned in all those threads.

I want to avoid the kind of permanent talking in circles that is inevitable in this kind of discussion. As Marc Lehmann has said, a decision will be made at some stage, and that decision will have to be made by a small number of people.

The point, I believe, of having brought this to the list was to reach some kind of consensus, and to allow people to disagree with the version bump and give reasons for that disagreement. That has happened, all the reasons for & against are out in the open, and now we need a decision.

To facilitate that, could the people who wish to express an opinion on the version numbering reply to this thread (once each) with the version number they would like to see on the next stable release of the GIMP. The rest of this mail can be snipped.

I'll get the ball rolling: 2.0

Dave.

Adam D. Moss
2003-06-19 21:52:26 UTC (almost 21 years ago)

New thread on GIMP 1.3+

David Neary wrote:
> I'll get the ball rolling: 2.0

8.0 (PeerMarketParityTM... sorry for the spam)

Henrik Brix Andersen
2003-06-19 21:52:38 UTC (almost 21 years ago)

New thread on GIMP 1.3+

On Thu, 2003-06-19 at 21:44, David Neary wrote:

To facilitate that, could the people who wish to express an opinion on the version numbering reply to this thread (once each) with the version number they would like to see on the next stable release of the GIMP. The rest of this mail can be snipped.

I'll get the ball rolling: 2.0

I vote for 2.0 as well.

./Brix

Guillermo S. Romero / Familia Romero
2003-06-19 22:08:20 UTC (almost 21 years ago)

New thread on GIMP 1.3+

1.4.

GSR

Steinar H. Gunderson
2003-06-19 22:11:59 UTC (almost 21 years ago)

New thread on GIMP 1.3+

On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 09:44:01PM +0200, David Neary wrote:

I'll get the ball rolling: 2.0

1.4. :-)

/* Steinar */

Nathan Carl Summers
2003-06-19 22:13:34 UTC (almost 21 years ago)

New thread on GIMP 1.3+

My vote is for 1.4. Otherwise, the Slashdot headline we will get is "GIMP 2.0 Fails to Deliver Promised Features"

Rockwalrus

Jakub Steiner
2003-06-19 22:43:25 UTC (almost 21 years ago)

New thread on GIMP 1.3+

On Thu, 2003-06-19 at 21:44, David Neary wrote:

I'll get the ball rolling: 2.0

1.4. From the marketing perspective 2.0 would do more harm than good because of the mentioned expected bad press ('none of the promised features').

Sven Neumann
2003-06-20 10:56:01 UTC (almost 21 years ago)

New thread on GIMP 1.3+

Hi,

Nathan Carl Summers writes:

Otherwise, the Slashdot headline we will get is "GIMP 2.0 Fails to Deliver Promised Features"

Do you really expect this to happen? Well, of course there will be the inevitable casual trolls, but apart from that, do you really expect bad press in the spirit of "not delivering promised features"? Did we ever promise anything? I can not remember that we did that.

Sorry, if this sounds as if I would not believe you, but this idea seems beyond my imagination...

Sven

Daniel Egger
2003-06-20 11:47:45 UTC (almost 21 years ago)

New thread on GIMP 1.3+

Am Don, 2003-06-19 um 21.44 schrieb David Neary:

I'll get the ball rolling: 2.0

1.4

Marco Wessel
2003-06-20 12:10:39 UTC (almost 21 years ago)

New thread on GIMP 1.3+

On 20 Jun 2003, Daniel Egger wrote:

Am Don, 2003-06-19 um 21.44 schrieb David Neary:

I'll get the ball rolling: 2.0

1.4

Damnit, call it GIMP XP already.

Marco

Raphaël Quinet
2003-06-20 13:27:39 UTC (almost 21 years ago)

New thread on GIMP 1.3+

On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 21:44:01 +0200, David Neary wrote:

I'll get the ball rolling: 2.0

FWIW, 1.4.

Yes, I know that I supported 2.0 three days ago, but I have changed my mind since then.

In any case, I don't think that making the poll on the developers' list is useful. If anybody wants to make a poll, it should be done on the user's list or in comp.graphics.apps.gimp. We would like to to avoid bad press from the users, not from the developers. So we should ask the users instead. The users' poll should start with a brief summary of user-visible changes and it should also mention what the next release will not have.

-Raphaël

Joao S. O. Bueno
2003-06-20 21:00:39 UTC (almost 21 years ago)

New thread on GIMP 1.3+

On Friday 20 June 2003 07:10, Marco Wessel wrote:

On 20 Jun 2003, Daniel Egger wrote:

Am Don, 2003-06-19 um 21.44 schrieb David Neary:

I'll get the ball rolling: 2.0

I wil stay with 1.4

Raymond Ostertag
2003-06-21 15:12:29 UTC (almost 21 years ago)

New thread on GIMP 1.3+

On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 21:44:01 +0200 David Neary wrote:

I'll get the ball rolling: 2.0

As Gimp supporter :
1.4 (or 1.8 for the number of changes in the code). 2.O is an error in matter of communication.

@+ Raymond