On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 1:58 AM, Jay Smith wrote:

> IMHO, the "loss of data" situation that the developers were trying to
> prevent with this change was not serious problem for the Gimp target user
> group (advanced users).  I doubt those advanced users were having a problem
> before this change.  I suspect that the people who were having the problem
> is the very group that are still going to have a problem in the use case you
> described.


Since you are talking about IMHOs, I consider myself an advanced user.
In a number of cases I already benefitted from the save/export
separation, because it forced me to save XCF which I thought I
probably didn't need and then ended up needing it to avoid redoing
some layer compositions from scratch.

I also have compositions that I will probably never recover in a
multilayered version, because I thought I knew better, and I was

> The developers jumped on me like I had five horns growing out of my head.

Nobody really jumps on people round here. Besides, folks with five
horns growing out of their heads have very few chances to be human,
have they not? :)

> In any case, it has been said very clearly many times that this change to
> Gimp is permanent and that no amount of complaining and no amount of other
> use cases or other logic will change anything.  I understand what the
> developers mean by saying that, but it makes it sound like they will not
> ever consider thinking about a mechanism that satisfies both groups.
> Blocking out the possibility of thinking about hard problems is sad.

Jay, we are thinking about hard problems all the time. Whether you
accept the results is an entirely different question.

Alexandre Prokoudine
gimp-user-list mailing list

Reply via email to