How much do you think will Gimp 2.9 and 2.10 change everything ?

[sallyanne]

I have 2 development versions. 2.9.1 (portable) and 2.9.3 on my pc and only play with them occasionally. 2.9.1 had MathMap and GMIC built in as well (the G'MIC is probably outdated now), which is why I am hanging onto it. So I don't have to install MM. Had a look and it also has a few things that are not in the most recent versions.
I use 2.8.18 for most things.
When 2.9 and 10 do come out as stable versions, scripts will probably have to be rewritten for those of us who don't know how to write them. Still lots to learn and do in gimp without I guess.
As for themes...I like blue ones.

[sallyanne]

Things look to be getting better all the time and I like cleaning photos up/restoring and I am pretty sure there will be more to help in that area.

[Wallace]

2.9.1 is not a stable version offered by Gimp.org.

It's more of a test/developers version.

I'm done with using independent builds of Gimp.
I've never had favorable installations with them.
Seems like I've always had to uninstall them and go with the most recent release for Gimp.org. 

I guess I haven't had much luck using other forms/builds of Gimp.

[sallyanne]

That's why I only have the 2.9.1 on a USB. Waiting for the 2.10 to come out. Be nice if Partha does some Windows 32 bit builds (which is why I have independant 2.9 ones)  

[Espermaschine]

(10-17-2016, 05:22 AM)Wallace Wrote: I've never had favorable installations with them.

The devel i have is a portable, so no need to install anything.

[prokoudine]

(10-13-2016, 12:45 PM)Ofnuts Wrote: The devs want to keep the "3.0" name for the version with the new UI...  (which is going to break even more tutorials....)

Out of curiosity, how many visual changes do you expect from a mere GTK+3 port? And how come the breaking of the API isn't what the team reserved 3.0 for?

[Ofnuts]

(10-19-2016, 08:05 AM)prokoudine Wrote:

(10-13-2016, 12:45 PM)Ofnuts Wrote: The devs want to keep the "3.0" name for the version with the new UI...  (which is going to break even more tutorials....)

Out of curiosity, how many visual changes do you expect from a mere GTK+3 port? And how come the breaking of the API isn't what the team reserved 3.0 for?

If it were just a mere library change without any impact to the users, would it warrant a major version change? Gimp will change only the release number for such "minor" things as internal architecture (high-bit depth, GEGL) and new file format, so the version change must be for something even more radical?

Just trying to find a bit of logic in that numbering scheme...

[prokoudine]

(10-19-2016, 08:26 AM)Ofnuts Wrote: If it were just a mere library change without any impact to the users, would it warrant a major version change? Gimp will change only the release number for such "minor" things as internal architecture (high-bit depth, GEGL) and new file format, so the version change must be for something even more radical?

Just trying to find a bit of logic in that numbering scheme...

I'm surprised you are asking this question. You've participated in a similar discussion before and were given a very specific reply to your question:

https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-dev...00081.html

How many "bits of logic" that makes is anyone's guess.

---

(10-13-2016, 12:46 PM)Espermaschine Wrote: Can somebody explain why the Gaussian Blur values are now different?

Different developers write things differently.

We actually started the review process for new versions of old filters a while ago, but we currently lack time to complete it.

http://wiki.gimp.org/wiki/Hacking:Portin.../UI_review


Contributions are welcome

[Ofnuts]

(10-19-2016, 09:51 PM)prokoudine Wrote:

(10-19-2016, 08:26 AM)Ofnuts Wrote: If it were just a mere library change without any impact to the users, would it warrant a major version change? Gimp will change only the release number for such "minor" things as internal architecture (high-bit depth, GEGL) and new file format, so the version change must be for something even more radical?

Just trying to find a bit of logic in that numbering scheme...

I'm surprised you are asking this question. You've participated in a similar discussion before and were given a very specific reply to your question:

https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-dev...00081.html

This could explain why one would consider a version change for GTK3, but doesn't explain why we don't get one for the high-bit-depth and not-backward-compatible file format (not mentioning some serious UI changes). In other words from the Gimp development team's point of view, the amount of changes between 2.8 and 2.10 is similar to the 2.6 to 2.8 differences. Okay. And to tell 2.10 from 3.0, for non-developer users that will be Help>About. Makes sense.

[prokoudine]

GIMP 2.0 was a port to GTK+2.

GIMP 3.0 is going to be a port to GTK+3.

The pattern is obvious, no?