On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 02:15:32AM +0200, peter sikking wrote:

> <http://www.mmiworks.net/eng/publications/2007/05/lgm-top-gimp-user- 
> requests_25.html>

On 4. better painting tools:

So you propose to have brush models in tools like dodge/burn.
Why would this be preferable to having modes like dodge/burn inside 
brush tools?
Maybe brush model and mode should be handled separately?

A: The region/scope to work on
  - whole image
  - a layer/group/set
  - a selection
  - brush strokes as they happen
B: Options for above
  - mainly brush model with parameters comes to mind
C: The action or drawing mode to apply
  - transformations
  - filters
  - paint

On power modes

Sounds like a rather vague distinction, makes me wonder if 
is such a good idea to split the modes based on it.
Shouldn't layer and paint modes be kept the same?

dipping and smearing

Considering GIMP is not and shall not be painter ... but this would 
be very nice especially for drawing from scratch ;)

On versions and approaches

I have been using layers for versioning, backup, too. It just works.
Of course real, branched versioning would rock. How much I would like 
to see it everywhere. Maybe there's a chance of pushing part of the 
functionality out, so it can become part the environment and have 
a wider developer pool?

Regarding adjustment layers and GEGL

GEGL is graph based, somewhat comparable to the nodes in Blender, 
right? If so, the concept of a layer stack does not match GEGL.
I would propose to go all nodes and have no layers, if the layer 
stack wouldn't match the common case so nicely.

On window management

I have been thinking: What if GIMP was represented by a window with 
just the main menu. Image windows could be dockable palettes. Requires 
docking side-by-side. For SDI style, one would dock one image window 
and the inspectors all to the main window. Several images could docked 
together to have tabs.

Thorsten Wilms

Thorwil's Design for Free Software:
Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to