[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
> On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 09:34 +0300, Alexia Death wrote:
>> > As soon as you copy them, they can be edited.
>> Why couldn't that copy be made for the user on profile creation?
> Last time we discussed this, we decided against copying all resource
> files to the user folder. But perhaps we need to reconsider this. There
> are some questions that need to be solved before we can do this though:
> - How can the user resurrect brushes that she removed?
> - How can we make sure that scripts don't break.
> - Is copying really the best solution?
>> > Having them read-only ensures that scripts can rely on them
>> > being available in their original size and shape.
>> If that is the intent why does the user need to see them at all? Cant
>> they be hidden and called "api" brushes? That would have more than one
> That's a possible solution. But I would prefer if we added API that
> allows scripts to set brush parameters. For backward compatibility, we
> could add some code that checks for standard brush names and creates the
> appropriate brush on the fly.
Hi I'm just a user of GIMP, not a developer.
I usually only use the brush-editor and just open the same brush all the
time and changing size and shape the way I need it.
I hardly ever use the default-brushes. So here is an idea I thought of,
when I read your discussion:
Why not set the brush-editor as default, just like the way it is done
with the ink-tool.
Everybody that needs other brushes uses the great amount of brushes you
can already download from the internet. I'd rather hope for a good
archive of brushes on gimp.org.
Just my unqualified 2cents
Gimp-developer mailing list