Hi,
On Fri, 2009-07-24 at 13:10 +0200, Martin Nordholts wrote:
What is the migration time? You would have to deal with this on each and
every start of GIMP. System resources may have changed, due to a minor
or micro GIMP update or because the system maintainer added or removed
resource
On 08/03/2009 09:33 PM, Sven Neumann wrote:
GIMP has done it the way you proposed in the past and copied system
resources to the user directory. This was ugly and caused lots of grief.
Eventually we got rid of this mess and now you are proposing to undo
this work and to reintroduce this
On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 20:21 +0930, David Gowers wrote:
[...]
You can already do that for any circle brush. The attribute is called
'Hardness'
We would not seriously consider such a level of reduction because it's
bad for usability -- it's much more painful for the user to adjust a
slider
David Gowers 00a...@gmail.com wrote:
You can already do that for any circle brush. The attribute is called
'Hardness'
Thanks for pointing this out. I'd overlooked that.
We would not seriously consider such a level of reduction because
it's bad for usability -- it's much more painful for
On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 10:18 +0930, David Gowers wrote:
Hmm, I tend to forget that there are people who use mice for general
GIMP work. I can see how this could actually save time then, if you
only ever use Eraser with one or two different fixed brushes instead
of switching a lot.
for what
On 07/28/2009 03:04 AM, Joao S. O. Bueno wrote:
Getting back to the start of this discussion --
I am in talks with the new mantainer of a very popular brazillian GIMP
comunity portal this week (Guilherme coordinating www.ogimp.com.br with
~20.000 unique visitors a day)-- he has resources of
Sparr spa...@gmail.com wrote:
Circle and Fuzzy Circle should be two brushes.
I've been following this conversation with a bit of interest, but I've
noticed that a lot of discussion has echoed this sentiment. Why should
there be two circle brushes? Couldn't there be a single circular brush
with
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Jason van Gumster
ja...@handturkeystudios.com wrote:
Sparr spa...@gmail.com wrote:
Circle and Fuzzy Circle should be two brushes.
I've been following this conversation with a bit of interest, but I've
noticed that a lot of discussion has echoed this
Getting back to the start of this discussion --
I am in talks with the new mantainer of a very popular brazillian GIMP
comunity portal this week (Guilherme coordinating www.ogimp.com.br with
~20.000 unique visitors a day)-- he has resources of his own which could be
made available eitehr in
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Martin Nordholtsense...@gmail.com wrote:
* Add larger variants of the circle and fuzzy circle
brushes, say 50, 100, 250 and 500 px
I really wish the brush system was improved to make this unneccessary.
We should be able to smoothly scale vector-ish brushes
Hi,
On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 22:07 +0200, Martin Nordholts wrote:
So, we can only add resources and tags that have never shipped with a
previous version of GIMP to the migrated user dir. Finding this set of
resources and tags is just a matter of maintaining data sets with
resources and tags
On 07/24/2009 09:06 AM, Sven Neumann wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 22:07 +0200, Martin Nordholts wrote:
So, we can only add resources and tags that have never shipped with a
previous version of GIMP to the migrated user dir. Finding this set of
resources and tags is just a matter of
Hi,
On Fri, 2009-07-24 at 10:33 +0200, Martin Nordholts wrote:
Whatever approach we take will require some dedicated code for managing
system/default resources. My conclusion is that being forced to deal
with this at migration time is less messy and keeps problems more local
than
On 07/24/2009 12:28 PM, Sven Neumann wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 2009-07-24 at 10:33 +0200, Martin Nordholts wrote:
Whatever approach we take will require some dedicated code for managing
system/default resources. My conclusion is that being forced to deal
with this at migration time is less messy
On 07/24/2009 01:10 PM, Martin Nordholts wrote:
As convinced you are that your approach is better than mine, I'm equally
convinced my approach is better then yours.
I would like to add that if the ongoing brush dynamics and tool options
redesign discussions end with a solution where editing of
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 2:31 PM, Martin Nordholts ense...@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/24/2009 01:10 PM, Martin Nordholts wrote:
As convinced you are that your approach is better than mine, I'm equally
convinced my approach is better then yours.
I would like to add that if the ongoing brush
hi,
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
hi,
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Alexia Deathalexiade...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, this is the key point of this discussion and IMHO the RIGHT
WAY(TM) to solve this. Editing resources during use should not require write
access. Saving the changes should. Use tweaking should be a different
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 4:48 AM, David Gowers wrote:
(Speaking of which, the fact that tools presets don't save/restore
scale value isn't helpful either.)
AFAICS that isn't a generally true fact. Works for me -- I just checked by
choosing 1.06, saving that as a preset,
setting it to 0.01
Hi,
On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 01:16 +0200, Martin Nordholts wrote:
Another reason is that it is not reasonable to duplicate the system
resources in the folders of all users.
How exactly is this unreasonable in 2009? Compared to the amount of
images we can expect a user to have based on our
On 07/23/2009 06:37 PM, Sven Neumann wrote:
I don't see how anything that was unreasonable some years ago becomes
reasonable in 2009.
It was equally reasonable also some years ago. My point was that we are
long past the time when hard disk space was an issue.
Another reason is that it
On Wednesday 22 July 2009 00:37:43 Sven Neumann wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 2009-07-21 at 18:33 -0300, Joao S. O. Bueno wrote:
I d'be against the removal of the vintage pixmaped brushes.
Why? Tell us a good reason then why we should keep them.
Ive done a few quite nice wallpapers with just dynamics
On 07/20/2009 06:43 AM, Laxminarayan Kamath wrote:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 4:06 AM, Martin Nordholtsense...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
With the integration of tagging support in GIMP we have a mechanism that
allows us to organize resources (brushes, patterns, palettes, and
gradients). This
Indeed, they are good examples. For me, the thing is : why these examples ?
To give examples doesn't mean not to justify them.
A justification could be the need of the users, if after a study it appears
that the color Brush the most relevant to provide by default is a Pepper, I
would understand.
On 07/20/2009 10:29 AM, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 2:36 AM, Martin Nordholts wrote:
* Add larger variants of the circle and fuzzy circle
brushes, say 50, 100, 250 and 500 px
The prerequisite for this is GIMP not playing a dying turtle that
climbs up to
On 07/20/2009 11:10 AM, Alexia Death wrote:
* Add larger variants of the circle and fuzzy circle
Please no, there's too many round brushes already and bigger ones would
look exactly the same and add confusion. There should not be 2 brushes
that look to be the same shape in the default set.
On 07/20/2009 03:28 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 2:36 AM, Martin Nordholts wrote:
Hi,
With the integration of tagging support in GIMP we have a mechanism that
allows us to organize resources (brushes, patterns, palettes, and
gradients). This enables us to add a
On 07/20/2009 06:19 PM, Emil Assarsson wrote:
What I really miss is to be able to remove brushes that I don't need
and sort/group the ones I use a lot.
Maybe it would be better that most - if not all - of the brushes where
copied to the users profile as a default instead of being static.
I
Martin Nordholts wrote:
I get your drift, but is it really reasonable to force a user to scale a
say 250px brush to 3px if that is what he desires? It might be, but I
don't think it is with our current scaling mechanism. What do you think
Regarding this, as an user (and not a programmer),
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:03:31 +0200
Martin Nordholts ense...@gmail.com wrote:
I get your drift, but is it really reasonable to force a user to scale a
say 250px brush to 3px if that is what he desires? It might be, but I
don't think it is with our current scaling mechanism. What do you think
On 07/22/2009 12:18 PM, SHIRAKAWA Akira wrote:
Martin Nordholts wrote:
I get your drift, but is it really reasonable to force a user to scale
a say 250px brush to 3px if that is what he desires? It might be, but
I don't think it is with our current scaling mechanism. What do you think
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 12:16 AM, Sven Neumann wrote:
Easy enough, just unset the 'global-brush' property. I am not sure
though if that would make a good default for the average user.
So far I only heard from users thanks, but why is it not by default? :)
Alexandre
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 14:12, Alexandre
Prokoudinealexandre.prokoud...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 12:16 AM, Sven Neumann wrote:
Easy enough, just unset the 'global-brush' property. I am not sure
though if that would make a good default for the average user.
So far I only heard
2009/7/22 Fredrik Alströmer wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 14:12, Alexandre
Prokoudinealexandre.prokoud...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 12:16 AM, Sven Neumann wrote:
Easy enough, just unset the 'global-brush' property. I am not sure
though if that would make a good default for
2009/7/22 Fredrik Alströmer r...@excu.se
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 14:12, Alexandre
Prokoudinealexandre.prokoud...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 12:16 AM, Sven Neumann wrote:
Easy enough, just unset the 'global-brush' property. I am not sure
though if that would make a good
On 07/20/2009 12:36 AM, Martin Nordholts wrote:
Does anyone have any suggestions on adjustments and additions to the
default set of GIMP resources?
Thanks for the great feedback everyone. Summing it up, these are the
current desired adjustments to the default set of resources.
We should:
*
2009/7/22 David Gowers wrote:
tools. When I think about it, I wonder whether such users ever get to using
GIMP with any level of frequency or intensity, as IMO with the global-brush
option off
Don't wonder -- they do. And I do too :)
(Speaking of which, the fact that tools presets don't
Martin Nordholts wrote on Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 03:05:38PM +0200:
On 07/20/2009 12:36 AM, Martin Nordholts wrote:
Does anyone have any suggestions on adjustments and additions to the
default set of GIMP resources?
Thanks for the great feedback everyone. Summing it up, these are the
On 07/22/2009 03:28 PM, Martin Cracauer wrote:
Speaking of brushes - brush rotation which currently requires a plugin
(which is a little painful to use as it isn't interactive) is high on
my wishlist.
Brush rotation is implemented in git master and will be part of GIMP 2.7.0.
/ Martin
Hi,
shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com (2009-07-22 at 1218.30 +0200):
Martin Nordholts wrote:
I get your drift, but is it really reasonable to force a user to scale a
say 250px brush to 3px if that is what he desires? It might be, but I
don't think it is with our current scaling mechanism. What
Hi,
On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 23:54 +0200, GSR - FR wrote:
I avoid scale whenever I can, so for vector brushes I just use the
brush editor.
Scaling a vector brush from the tool options is equivalent, at least
from an implementation point of view, to changing its size in the brush
editor.
Sven
Hi,
On Tue, 2009-07-21 at 18:53 -0400, Rob Antonishen wrote:
One reason to keep some image hose brushes in the default set is just
to demonstrate that gimp supports them! I participate in a web forum
for amateur cartography, and one of the most common requests is how to
use tubes with
Hi,
On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 12:10 +0200, Martin Nordholts wrote:
On 07/20/2009 06:19 PM, Emil Assarsson wrote:
What I really miss is to be able to remove brushes that I don't need
and sort/group the ones I use a lot.
Maybe it would be better that most - if not all - of the brushes where
Hi,
s...@gimp.org (2009-07-23 at 0031.55 +0200):
On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 23:54 +0200, GSR - FR wrote:
I avoid scale whenever I can, so for vector brushes I just use the
brush editor.
Scaling a vector brush from the tool options is equivalent, at least
from an implementation point of view, to
On 07/23/2009 12:39 AM, Sven Neumann wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 12:10 +0200, Martin Nordholts wrote:
On 07/20/2009 06:19 PM, Emil Assarsson wrote:
What I really miss is to be able to remove brushes that I don't need
and sort/group the ones I use a lot.
Maybe it would be better that
Hi,
On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 00:51 +0200, Martin Nordholts wrote:
We could either introduce a complex system to allow the user to delete
system resources, or we could make it simple for ourselves and the user
and just initialize the user dir with a set of default resources. I
don't
Hi,
On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 00:48 +0200, GSR - FR wrote:
The points are the separate GUI, the mental maths required or the try
and error workflow until you find the right size for brush changes,
which are the issues the user has to cope with; versus a(n unified)
pixel size control (currently
On 07/23/2009 12:56 AM, Sven Neumann wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 00:51 +0200, Martin Nordholts wrote:
We could either introduce a complex system to allow the user to delete
system resources, or we could make it simple for ourselves and the user
and just initialize the user dir with a
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:47 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine
alexandre.prokoud...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/22 David Gowers wrote:
tools. When I think about it, I wonder whether such users ever get to
using
GIMP with any level of frequency or intensity, as IMO with the
global-brush
option off
On Monday 20 July 2009, Sven Neumann wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, 2009-07-20 at 00:36 +0200, Martin Nordholts wrote:
* Try to get rid of the Pepper, Sparks and Vine brushes
in a backwards compatible way
You can just remove those if we agree that they are not useful. I doubt
that any script
Hi,
On Tue, 2009-07-21 at 18:33 -0300, Joao S. O. Bueno wrote:
I d'be against the removal of the vintage pixmaped brushes.
Why? Tell us a good reason then why we should keep them.
Sven
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
One reason to keep some image hose brushes in the default set is just
to demonstrate that gimp supports them! I participate in a web forum
for amateur cartography, and one of the most common requests is how to
use tubes with photoshop. Most are extremely impressed that this
capability exists in
On Tuesday 21 July 2009, Sven Neumann wrote:
Why? Tell us a good reason then why we should keep them.
On Tuesday 21 July 2009, Rob Antonishen wrote:
One reason to keep some image hose brushes in the default set is just
to demonstrate that gimp supports them! I participate in a web forum
for
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 2:36 AM, Martin Nordholts wrote:
* Add larger variants of the circle and fuzzy circle
brushes, say 50, 100, 250 and 500 px
The prerequisite for this is GIMP not playing a dying turtle that
climbs up to Kilimanjaro top while drawing with a 200+ px brush :)
Alexandre
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 1:36 AM, Martin Nordholts ense...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I think we at least should:
* Add larger variants of the circle and fuzzy circle
brushes, say 50, 100, 250 and 500 px
Please no, there's too many round brushes already and bigger ones would look
exactly the
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Alexia Death wrote:
Default set of resources should include some tool presets, like some common
aspect ratio fixed presets(2:3, 3:4) for crop tool and dynamics enabled
presets for the paint tools using default resources set.
So we are back to the topic of GIMP
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine
alexandre.prokoud...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Alexia Death wrote:
Default set of resources should include some tool presets, like some
common
aspect ratio fixed presets(2:3, 3:4) for crop tool and dynamics
I have not played extensively with a release supporting tagging so
forgive this possible trivial questions.
Is the tagging data stored in the resource file itself as metadata or
in some corresponding file or files?
Is it possible to pre-tag the items in a set of resources (say a brush
set) that
On 07/20/2009 02:40 PM, Rob Antonishen wrote:
Is the tagging data stored in the resource file itself as metadata or
in some corresponding file or files?
The tags are stored externally in ~/.gimp-2.7/tags.xml
Is it possible to pre-tag the items in a set of resources (say a brush
set) that can
Martin Nordholts wrote:
Does anyone have any suggestions on adjustments and additions to the
default set of GIMP resources?
I would propose having a hard-edged, foreground color to background
color gradient. Such a gradient can be useful for creating circles,
boxes, blinds, bullseyes, and
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 2:36 AM, Martin Nordholts wrote:
Hi,
With the integration of tagging support in GIMP we have a mechanism that
allows us to organize resources (brushes, patterns, palettes, and
gradients). This enables us to add a bigger set of default resources.
What I'd love to see
I'd really love to see GIMP Paint Studio presets as default too. That
would make possible to get rid of some default brushes that really don't
cut.
About the large size brushes, I also agree. I think that several small
round brushes should be removed (since brush scaling covers that need).
We have
What I really miss is to be able to remove brushes that I don't need
and sort/group the ones I use a lot.
Maybe it would be better that most - if not all - of the brushes where
copied to the users profile as a default instead of being static. This
also would invite the user to modify her/his own
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Emil Assarsson wrote:
What I really miss is to be able to remove brushes that I don't need
and sort/group the ones I use a lot.
There is he GURM python plugin which works quite well for this:
http://registry.gimp.org/node/13473
-Rob A
Hi,
ense...@gmail.com (2009-07-20 at 0036.20 +0200):
[...]
gradients). This enables us to add a bigger set of default resources.
Here you say bigger.
[...]
A few things are clear:
* The new default resources must fit the product vision [1]
Does that leave things like Gimp Paint Studio
Hi,
On Mon, 2009-07-20 at 00:36 +0200, Martin Nordholts wrote:
* Try to get rid of the Pepper, Sparks and Vine brushes
in a backwards compatible way
You can just remove those if we agree that they are not useful. I doubt
that any script out there actually uses them. This is different
Hi,
On Mon, 2009-07-20 at 17:28 +0400, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
What I'd love to see instead/alongside is sane defaults. While Pencil
is a brush based tool, users do not actually expect it to behave like
a brush. But right now Pencil and Brush use same brush by default:
Circle Fuzzy (19),
Hi,
With the integration of tagging support in GIMP we have a mechanism that
allows us to organize resources (brushes, patterns, palettes, and
gradients). This enables us to add a bigger set of default resources.
Not being an artist myself makes me rather useless for this task. To get
things
Martin Nordholts wrote:
[cut]
Does anyone have any suggestions on adjustments and additions to the
default set of GIMP resources?
I have a few suggestions as a creative/artistic user which uses GIMP
mainly with a pen tablet (as probably any other people who is serious
into raster graphic
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 4:06 AM, Martin Nordholtsense...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
With the integration of tagging support in GIMP we have a mechanism that
allows us to organize resources (brushes, patterns, palettes, and
gradients). This enables us to add a bigger set of default resources.
I
70 matches
Mail list logo
