Linked by Hadrien Grasland on Sun 9th Jan 2011 12:39 UTC, submitted by RichterKuato
Graphics, User Interfaces "GIMP 2.8 has been talked about for more than a year and back in January there was a GIMP 2.8 release schedule by Martin Nordholts that had set the final release for the 27th of December. That date has now passed and, sadly, this major update to this leading open-source graphics program is still not close to being released."
Thread beginning with comment 456649
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Sun 9th Jan 2011 12:55 UTC
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

Odd; this news item doesn’t link to anything that states that which the item is claiming. Page 2 items in general are just a direct quote from the article being linked to. In this case, this is more like a page 1 article that is making its own statement. Who is making the claim that GIMP 2.8 is struggling to make it out of the door? The submitter? Where is the proof; URLs, we need URLs!

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Kroc
by steogede2 on Sun 9th Jan 2011 13:08 in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
steogede2 Member since:
2007-08-17

Odd; this news item doesn’t link to anything that states that which the item is claiming.


I agree, the linked article contradicts the statements in the story, i.e. :

"a GIMP 2.8 release schedule by Martin Nordholts that had set the final release for the 27th of December"

According to the link, the 27th December date was an estimated date, not a 'set ... final' date. More over it was an estimate that was made 12 months in advance, so it is hardly surprising that it was not accurate.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by churlish_Helmut on Sun 9th Jan 2011 13:20 in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
churlish_Helmut Member since:
2010-04-12

But lets keep an eye on it.

I think, the 2.8 release will making trouble, and they will need another year...

Nah, im just guessing. Maybe it is ready next thursday.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 9th Jan 2011 13:26 in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I fixed it. Our new editor having some problems there - not a big deal, considering our backend editor ;) .

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by Sauron on Sun 9th Jan 2011 19:34 in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
Sauron Member since:
2005-08-02

Patience is a virtue they say. I don't see as it matters too much if it takes even another year to be released as long as it is stable and implemented correctly. Personally, I would rather wait a while for a improved release than have to put up with a rushed and slightly buggy one. For the number of developers working on the project I think they do a great job and a superhuman effort. I extend my thanks and gratitude to these people, keep up the great work and don't feel pressured to release something you feel is not ready. We will all benefit from this next release. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Comment by Kroc
by Neolander on Sun 9th Jan 2011 14:19 in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Sorry for the inconvenience ! ^^' In the initial submission, there were no URLs whatsoever, so I had no idea where it was coming from. I thought that everything was written by the submitter, and just added a link to the original announcement by Martin Nordholts, thinking that it would be enough. Next time, I'll ask for more details.

Edited 2011-01-09 14:22 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by RichterKuato on Sun 9th Jan 2011 19:16 in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
RichterKuato Member since:
2010-05-14

Oops, that was my bad actually. I new I forgot something.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Comment by Kroc
by tyrione on Mon 10th Jan 2011 00:57 in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

Odd; this news item doesn’t link to anything that states that which the item is claiming. Page 2 items in general are just a direct quote from the article being linked to. In this case, this is more like a page 1 article that is making its own statement. Who is making the claim that GIMP 2.8 is struggling to make it out of the door? The submitter? Where is the proof; URLs, we need URLs!


Read the developer list.

http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/lists/gimp-developer/2011-January/026...

Reply Parent Score: 2