[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
> Hi,
>
> 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 
>> benefit.
>>     
>
> 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.
>
>
> Sven
>
>
>
>
>   
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

Anke


_______________________________________________
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Reply via email to