Here we go again . . . .

> PS Why do the developpers think we all want to use the .xcf format ?

It's not like that.  It's a change in design from one model to another.

The change is beneficial when you ARE working on an XCF file (in the exact same 
vein as using Photoshop to work on PSD files, e.g. multi-layer digital 
compositions).  Prior to 2.8 when you "Saved" to something other than an XCF 
you were constantly warned about things that had to happen (e.g. flattening 
layers) before GIMP could actually output the file.  After that, GIMP lost 
track of the XCF file, meaning that any subsequent "Save" commands targetted 
the most recent (non-XCF ) file and if you didn't manually save back to the XCF 
file before quitting, you could potentially lose edits.

The upside is that Exporting to standard image formats is actually faster in 
2.8 than Saving to them was in 2.6 .

The downside is that the change is indeed annoying when all you need GMP for is 
to open up an image, make a few edits then save back to it, because this does 
not make GIMP consider the image "Saved" (to an XCF) and you get an extra "Save 
changes?" prompt when closing the image. 

(I also personally disagree with the developer's insistence that GIMP should 
not give the user an option to switch from the Save dialog to the Export 
dialogue or vice versa.)

But enough of that.  Search the mailing list archives sometime and you will 
find literally thousands of posts on the Save/Export topic (if the search below 
is to be believed, in fact over THIRTY THOUSAND):

Try giving it a month or two to mentally adjust to selecting "Export" instead 
of "Save" when you need to output a standard image file format.  If you still 
prefer the old behavior, there are alternatives, such as the "noxcf" fork that 
preserves the 2.6-style saving behavior:

-- Stratadrake
Numbers may not lie, but neither do they tell the whole truth.
gimp-user-list mailing list

Reply via email to