from a long-term perspective, i expect resources to be shared easily
'on the cloud', with each resource item identified by a GUID.

Then, the read-only system files are just a local cache of some of the
available resources on the internet. Also from this perspective, it becomes
strange to hide resources - it's rather that a subset of seamingly infinite
resources gets pulled into the user's workspace.

The mechanism to proliferate updated resources would be the same as
searching for new resources -- initiated by the user.
A hint could be shown that a certain new brush is _intended_ to replace
an old one, but the replacement should not be done automagically.
After all, these are actually two different resource items.

Martin Nordholts schrieb:
> I would like to add that if the ongoing brush dynamics and tool options 
> redesign discussions end with a solution where editing of actual brush 
> files is not necessary, then this whole discussion is obsolete. But as 
> long as that file writability matters for resources, then what we have 
> now is broken and needs to be fixed somehow.

if tweaked resources are to be shared, too, then it doesn't make a difference
other than that potentially two files have to be shared in case adjustments
are separated from the brush data.

hope i'm not too far off ;)


Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to