Perhaps I may add a perspective, please.

Using LibreOffice, one of the major benefits of that package is that it will open and save as the same nearly all document formats, both old and new. When one has document files 18 years old, this is a major benefit, giving continuity to one's work.

Moving on to a new format gives significant advantages, but if it makes obsolete valid and useful past work, isn't that somewhat arrogant to tell users that past work is out of date and cannot be opened in the new version of GIMP?

After all there are many Old Masters created in analogue format (paint?). If they were created in digital format, should they be thrown away, just because they were created in the most advanced format available at the time, which is now out of date?

HTH

-----Original Message----- From: Jehan Pagès
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 9:58 PM To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] opening 2.9.3 file in 2.8.14 (NOT)

Hi,

On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 9:29 PM, Akkana Peck wrote:

Michael Natterer writes:

On Tue, 2015-12-08 at 22:56 +0100, Jernej Simončič wrote:

I've seen that, but what I specifically meant was a File -> Export option
that writes XCF compatible with older GIMP versions, possibly losing data
in the process (which is why it'd be Export, not Save).

I keep wondering why we would want that at all.

- as soon as we have 2.10, every older version is obsolete, it's not like one would have to buy 2.10 and must stick with 2.8 because it's not affordable

So why bother with compat saving at all?

No one has to stick with 2.8 for cost reasons. But most people, at least on Linux, will have to upgrade their OS to get all the libraries needed to run the new GIMP. Historically, it can take six months or longer after a release before most Linux users can run the new GIMP version, and a few users (on "stable" releases) may wait a lot longer than that.

Yes but the question still remains: if you want to share a XCF, this is usually for team working (or similar reasons involving others wanting to edit your work). Then if you used a new feature, how do you pass your work to someone with another version?

For instance if you were using high bit depth, then if you "save" without high bith depth in order to have a 2.8-compatible XCF, the person you shared with simply has a different image. Then if this persons edits this image, and sends it back to you, then what? You now have a 8-bit version. If that is not a problem, why bother from the start with high bit depth? Oppositely if high bit depth is too important to you for even considering losing it, there is simply no other solution: everyone must have a recent version of GIMP able to process high bit depth.

I took this feature as an example, but that is also true for any other feature which would require an update in the XCF format.

Jehan

P.S.: maybe we could have an extension standard within XCF which could allow older versions to load newer XCF files using unknown feature and displaying warnings but still loading a "partly broken" file. This could be an interesting update, why not. But right now, this does not exist. And it would not be possible for every kind of feature (once again, the high bit depth changes the image data in too much a deep way to make this easy).

P.P.S.: this said, I agree with Mitch that there are very few (good) reasons to keep an old version of GIMP. And I don't think we should encourage this. As for the package management systems which are indeed slow to update on many Linux distributions, I have good hope towards the xdg-app project which would make such a worry a thing of the past.

...Akkana
_______________________________________________ gimp-user-list mailing list
List address: gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list

I should like to apologise for not communicating sufficiently clearly. To clarify, may I please respond to the four (I think!) misunderstanding of my comments shown below. For clarity and ease of reference, relevant extracts from the various comments are shown below.

1) Of course Messrs. Natterer and Pagès are right that, when people are working on the same document/file/picture, the saving of their work has to be compatible between the group. However, unless this is done by a commercial organisation providing the same machines with the same versions of all the software on those machines to all the participants in the group, there are likely to be all sorts of variants. This is likely to particularly so where the group participants are independents, with differing machines on different operating systems where the only unifying characteristic is working on the same document/file/picture using the same application.

In the latter circumstance, there are likely to be different versions of GIMP in use. In this instance, Mr. Simončič wrote: "I've seen that, but what I specifically meant was a File -> Export option that writes XCF compatible with older GIMP versions, possibly losing data in the process (which is why it'd be Export, not Save)."

As an illustration, I wrote "Using LibreOffice, one of the major benefits of that package is that it will open and save as the same nearly all document formats, both old and new. When one has document files 18 years old, this is a major benefit, giving continuity to one's work."

To clarify, and this is only using LibreOffice since April, 2013, the suite allows one not only to open files in both old and diverse formats but also to save them in the same old formats. If there is loss of information in saving in the old format, LibreOffice warns you of this and the user has to make a positive decision to carry on using the old format, but is allowed to do so by the application.

To echo Mr. Simončič's point, adding this ability to save in older GIMP formats could be very useful where, as outlined above, for perfectly valid reasons, different members of the same group have differing versions of GIMP.

2) Regarding Mr. Pagès' response, hopefully I have explained above why my comments are not off-topic.

3) Regarding Mr. Peck's comments about OpenOffice, I can't comment. When I looked at open source Office software, I deliberately chose LibreOffice because that had remained open source. By the same token, I rejected OpenOffice because Oracle had tried to make it proprietary, as a result of which the programmers left and set up LibreOffice. My comments about using LibreOffice can be verified by anyone downloading it and using it.

4) I found Mr. Prokoudine's comment disappointing. Not being in a court of law or a policeman, I have not "accused" anyone of anything. I merely asked a question, offering people a chance to reflect a moment. Further, as I have tried to explain above, I have paid attention to Mr. Simončič's point, which I was trying to reinforce. Clearly I didn't explain it properly, for which I have already apologised above.

HTH

-----Original Message----- From: Derek Mortimer
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 11:58 PM To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] opening 2.9.3 file in 2.8.14 (NOT)

Perhaps I may add a perspective, please.

Using LibreOffice, one of the major benefits of that package is that it will open and save as the same nearly all document formats, both old and new. When one has document files 18 years old, this is a major benefit, giving continuity to one's work.

Moving on to a new format gives significant advantages, but if it makes obsolete valid and useful past work, isn't that somewhat arrogant to tell users that past work is out of date and cannot be opened in the new version of GIMP?

After all there are many Old Masters created in analogue format (paint?). If they were created in digital format, should they be thrown away, just because they were created in the most advanced format available at the time, which is now out of date?

HTH

-----Original Message----- From: Jehan Pagès
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 9:58 PM To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] opening 2.9.3 file in 2.8.14 (NOT)

Hi,

On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 9:29 PM, Akkana Peck wrote:

Michael Natterer writes:

On Tue, 2015-12-08 at 22:56 +0100, Jernej Simončič wrote:

I've seen that, but what I specifically meant was a File -> Export option
that writes XCF compatible with older GIMP versions, possibly losing data
in the process (which is why it'd be Export, not Save).

I keep wondering why we would want that at all.

- as soon as we have 2.10, every older version is obsolete, it's not like one would have to buy 2.10 and must stick with 2.8 because it's not affordable

So why bother with compat saving at all?

No one has to stick with 2.8 for cost reasons. But most people, at least on Linux, will have to upgrade their OS to get all the libraries needed to run the new GIMP. Historically, it can take six months or longer after a release before most Linux users can run the new GIMP version, and a few users (on "stable" releases) may wait a lot longer than that.

Yes but the question still remains: if you want to share a XCF, this is usually for team working (or similar reasons involving others wanting to edit your work). Then if you used a new feature, how do you pass your work to someone with another version?

For instance if you were using high bit depth, then if you "save" without high bith depth in order to have a 2.8-compatible XCF, the person you shared with simply has a different image. Then if this persons edits this image, and sends it back to you, then what? You now have a 8-bit version. If that is not a problem, why bother from the start with high bit depth? Oppositely if high bit depth is too important to you for even considering losing it, there is simply no other solution: everyone must have a recent version of GIMP able to process high bit depth.

I took this feature as an example, but that is also true for any other feature which would require an update in the XCF format.

Jehan

P.S.: maybe we could have an extension standard within XCF which could allow older versions to load newer XCF files using unknown feature and displaying warnings but still loading a "partly broken" file. This could be an interesting update, why not. But right now, this does not exist. And it would not be possible for every kind of feature (once again, the high bit depth changes the image data in too much a deep way to make this easy).

P.P.S.: this said, I agree with Mitch that there are very few (good) reasons to keep an old version of GIMP. And I don't think we should encourage this. As for the package management systems which are indeed slow to update on many Linux distributions, I have good hope towards the xdg-app project which would make such a worry a thing of the past.

...Akkana

-----Original Message-----
From: Akkana Peck
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 3:34 AM To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] opening 2.9.3 file in 2.8.14 (NOT)

Alexandre Prokoudine writes:

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 2:58 AM, Derek Mortimer wrote:

Moving on to a new format gives significant advantages, but if it makes obsolete valid and useful past work, isn't that somewhat arrogant to tell users that past work is out of date and cannot be opened in the new version of GIMP?

We are not even discussing opening older files in newer version sof GIMP. We are talking about completely opposite thing: opening newer GIMP files in ol versions of GIMP.

Also, I had the exact same problem with OpenOffice, years ago, that we're talking about with GIMP: newer versions of OO would save .odt that older OO versions couldn't read. I can only assume that's still true of LibreOffice since I don't see any compatibility options for older ODT in the Save As menu.

...Akkana

-----Original Message----- From: Jehan Pagès
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 12:11 AM To: Derek Mortimer
Cc: gimp-user-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] opening 2.9.3 file in 2.8.14 (NOT)

Hi,

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 12:58 AM, Derek Mortimer wrote:

Perhaps I may add a perspective, please.

Using LibreOffice, one of the major benefits of that package is that it will open and save as the same nearly all document formats, both old and new. When one has document files 18 years old, this is a major benefit, giving continuity to one's work.

Moving on to a new format gives significant advantages, but if it makes obsolete valid and useful past work, isn't that somewhat arrogant to tell users that past work is out of date and cannot be opened in the new version of GIMP?

After all there are many Old Masters created in analogue format (paint?). If they were created in digital format, should they be thrown away, just because they were created in the most advanced format available at the time, which is now out of date?

I'm sorry, but this is completely off-topic. Of course old works are perfectly opened with newer versions of GIMP and this will stay so. Why would we break older files?
If you find examples otherwise, then this is a bug, and we would welcome bug reports for us to fix the issue.

So to make sure things are clear: we are talking about files made with newer GIMP using new features which cannot be opened with older GIMP (since older GIMP did not have these features).

Jehan

-----Original Message----- From: Alexandre Prokoudine
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 12:11 AM To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] opening 2.9.3 file in 2.8.14 (NOT)

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 2:58 AM, Derek Mortimer wrote:

Moving on to a new format gives significant advantages, but if it makes obsolete valid and useful past work, isn't that somewhat arrogant to tell users that past work is out of date and cannot be opened in the new version of GIMP?

We are not even discussing opening older files in newer version sof GIMP. We are talking about completely opposite thing: opening newer GIMP files in ol versions of GIMP.

Please do pay attention before you accuse people of anything.

Alex