Linked by Hadrien Grasland on Sun 9th Jan 2011 12:39 UTC, submitted by RichterKuato
Thread beginning with comment 456662
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/16/13 9:29 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-08-09
I wonder, what is the point of writing precise information, when subsequent rewrites get things wrong in every single aspect?
The date was not set in January 2010, it was revisited three times after that, last time — in June 2010. This is mentioned in the original article.
Neither was it a final date — it was a rough estimation. The point of it was to get an idea, when GIMP 2.8 could be released given thiongs that are considered doable for 2.8.
Some tasks were postponed till 2.10 (or 3.0, whichever will be next), and some were implemented for 2.8 instead (like Cairo based rendering for tools and various bits of UI).
Some estimations were incorrect (like aforementioned Cairo based rendering which took twice as little time than expected), and some were spot on.
Come on, OSNews, you can do better than that.