Re: [Gimp-developer] how far from 2.10?

[Ofnuts <ofnuts laposte net>]

On 01/01/2014 03:10 PM, Jon Nordby wrote:
> On 31 December 2013 23:26, Ofnuts <ofnuts laposte net> wrote:
> > On 12/31/2013 06:36 PM, Marco Ciampa wrote:
> > > Presumably how far are we to the new 2.10 gimp version?
> > > How many blocking bugs are left and what are these?
> > >
> > > thanks and happy GNU year...
> >
> > Will it really be 2.10? Its internals are different, the file format is
> > different (will 2.8 be able to load 16/32/FP files saved by the next
> > version?), and it looks like many plugins won't work anymore and will need
> > seroius rework...
> Which plugins do you expect not to work anymore, and why?

OK, maybe I'm pessimistic here, even if some of my python scripts had to 
be reworked between 2.6 and 2.8, which have far less differences than 
2.8 and 2.10. Then in the current API there are still many values with 
0-255 ranges (gimp-drawable-{get|set}-pixel (),gimp-histogram) for 
instance. So either there is absolutely no change in the API and the 
script may produce sub-optimal results in images with high bit depth, or 
there is some change and the script has to be reworked and may be made 
bimodal or forked to support 2.8 and 2.10.
> 2.8 will not be able files from 2.10 using new features (naturally).
> I believe files produced with 2.10 which _does not_ make use of
> 2.10-only features can be opened in 2.8. Correct me if I am wrong.
> 2.10 will be able to open all 2.8 files, of course.

In the usual V.R.M numbering, the situation above is typically when you 
change the version number (and maybe the file extension)... because my 
point here is not the (completely understandable) incompatibilities, it 
their understatement by calling the next version 2.10.