-1 On adding it back like it was before. It just made no sense most of
the time. This needs to be done right
Daniel Salazar
patazstudio.com


On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 5:14 PM, joe <[email protected]> wrote:
> I agree, but I think maybe we should bring it back until the new
> implementation. Though it shouldn't be too hard, just an extra flag per
> node.
> On Apr 14, 2014 3:56 PM, "Daniel Salazar - patazstudio.com" <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> The old behavior was too broad and intrusive, maybe swapping could be
>> implemented just in the few cases where it actually makes sense like
>> in mix nodes
>> Daniel Salazar
>> patazstudio.com
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 4:53 PM, gandalf3 <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > I have missed the node connection usability feature which was removed in
>> > r61178, and I'm convinced that my node workflow is slightly slower than
>> > it was before.
>> >
>> > I have written up a wiki page/request explaining why I think the old
>> > behavior was faster in most cases. You can find it here:
>> >
>> http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Dev_talk:Ref/Proposals/UI/Socket_Swapping
>> >
>> > And I just want to say how awesome Blender is, and also thanks, for
>> > keeping Blender going :)
>> >
>> > --
>> > -gandalf3
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Bf-committers mailing list
>> > [email protected]
>> > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bf-committers mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-committers mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
_______________________________________________
Bf-committers mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers

Reply via email to