Re: [Gimp-developer] Export instead save directly

2016-03-14 Thread Alexandre Prokoudine
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 6:06 AM, john smith wrote:
> As long as people are putting their hands up

There is no vote on this, and there won't be one.

> Is it possible to write a plugin that re-maps core shortcuts

Edit -> Keyboard Shortcuts

> and changes default menu layouts etc?

The can't be such a plugin.

Alex
___
gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list


Re: [Gimp-developer] Export instead save directly

2016-03-13 Thread john smith
As long as people are putting their hands up, I never save in xcf and
would prefer a workflow that was open, edit, save in same format.

However, rather than try to change the core code to appease those with
a similar thought, I would like to know if it is possible to change
this behaviour with a plugin.
This way both sides are happy.

Is it possible to write a plugin that re-maps core shortcuts and
changes default menu layouts etc?


On 1 March 2016 at 11:00, C R  wrote:
> Sounds good to me. I'm more than capable of choosing the correct file
> extension(s) and settings for myself. I think it's beneficial to have those
> settings already intelligently defaulted to when saving. I believe it will
> save some clicking in most workflows. Also good that it can be turned on
> and off in settings. I'd keep the warning about not having saved an .xcf
> file of the current doc when closing if there is indeed data to be lost.
> That will have the same effect as the current [Sorry, you can't Save to a
> jpeg, please use export instead] warning screen. When I type a file
> extension, GIMP knows what I want to happen. It should do it dutifully,
> then warn me at a later time that I should save my project construction
> file before closing it.
>
> +1 from me.
>
> -C
>
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Simone Karin Lehmann 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> > Am 01.03.2016 um 15:05 schrieb C R :
>> >
>> > If Save intelligently determines the file format that is most likely to
>> be
>> > used to save, Export should not be necessary. Just "Save" and "Save As"
>> > would suffice.
>> >
>> That's nearly exactly what I did with my patched version on
>> http://gimp.lisanet.de
>> I even made this a configurable option in the Preferences dialog.
>> So, if one is interested, have a look at my patches.
>>
>> > We could use the "multi layer" & "layer outside layer boundaries"
>>
>> I'm currently testing only for 'multiple layers' but it's quite easy to
>> add other tests.
>>
>> > convention to suggest that the user save to xcf, as normal to preserve
>> what
>> > they are seeing in the editor. The workflow would just involve flattening
>> > the image (which also gets rid of alpha) first before saving to make the
>> > Save default to the imported file format as a save suggestion. This has
>> the
>> > advantage of being intuitive and changeable merely by typing the required
>> > file extension. For my various workflows, 99 times out of 100, it would
>> not
>> > be necessary to change anything.
>>
>> That was the reason why I did it. And I got a lot of positive feedback
>> from users of my package.
>>
>> >
>> > I'd be lying if I said the current export convention didn't trip me up
>> > occasionally. It's been 6 years since I switched completely from
>> Photoshop,
>> > so in my case, it's not really blamable on convention anylonger. :)
>> >
>> > My 2p.
>> >
>> > -C
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> On 1 Mar 2016 8:43 am, "Tobias Ellinghaus"  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Am Montag, 29. Februar 2016, 23:57:10 schrieb C R:
>>  That would be terrible. Users not understanding the concept would
>> >> suddenly
>>  be
>>  facing images where they can just save to JPEG while others can't, but
>> >> PNG
>>  is
>>  still enabled (because they somehow added an alpha channel), and even
>>  other
>>  images support XCF only (maybe because the layer is bigger than the
>>  image).
>> >>
>> >> (I used "just" in the sense of "without any further actions" and not
>> >> "only".)
>> >>
>> >>> No, that's not what I'm suggesting. If you import a jpeg for example,
>> do
>> >>> your editing, and end up with an alpha channel somehow, the save could
>> >>> still default to the .jpg (the jpeg save dialogue could display a
>> warning
>> >>> that transparency will be lost). That does not prevent the user from
>> >>> requesting a .png (by specifying that extension). It also does not
>> >> prevent
>> >>> the user saving as an xcf either for that matter.
>> >>>
>> >>> When closing the file, if the file is not saved as an xcf, and there is
>> >>> extra data to be lost, well, the warning about it is there anyway.
>> >>
>> >> But that would mean to just go back to the status quo ante, i.e., revert
>> >> the
>> >> save/export dichotomy and bring back saving to arbitrary formats.
>> >>
>> >> [...]
>> >>
>> >>> My 2p.
>> >>> -C
>> >>
>> >> Tobias
>> >>
>> >> [...]
>> >> ___
>> >> gimp-developer-list mailing list
>> >> List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
>> >> List membership:
>> >> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
>> >> List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list
>> > ___
>> > gimp-developer-list mailing list
>> > List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
>> > List membership:
>> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
>> > List archives:   

Re: [Gimp-developer] Export instead save directly

2016-03-01 Thread C R
Sounds good to me. I'm more than capable of choosing the correct file
extension(s) and settings for myself. I think it's beneficial to have those
settings already intelligently defaulted to when saving. I believe it will
save some clicking in most workflows. Also good that it can be turned on
and off in settings. I'd keep the warning about not having saved an .xcf
file of the current doc when closing if there is indeed data to be lost.
That will have the same effect as the current [Sorry, you can't Save to a
jpeg, please use export instead] warning screen. When I type a file
extension, GIMP knows what I want to happen. It should do it dutifully,
then warn me at a later time that I should save my project construction
file before closing it.

+1 from me.

-C

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Simone Karin Lehmann 
wrote:

>
> > Am 01.03.2016 um 15:05 schrieb C R :
> >
> > If Save intelligently determines the file format that is most likely to
> be
> > used to save, Export should not be necessary. Just "Save" and "Save As"
> > would suffice.
> >
> That's nearly exactly what I did with my patched version on
> http://gimp.lisanet.de
> I even made this a configurable option in the Preferences dialog.
> So, if one is interested, have a look at my patches.
>
> > We could use the "multi layer" & "layer outside layer boundaries"
>
> I'm currently testing only for 'multiple layers' but it's quite easy to
> add other tests.
>
> > convention to suggest that the user save to xcf, as normal to preserve
> what
> > they are seeing in the editor. The workflow would just involve flattening
> > the image (which also gets rid of alpha) first before saving to make the
> > Save default to the imported file format as a save suggestion. This has
> the
> > advantage of being intuitive and changeable merely by typing the required
> > file extension. For my various workflows, 99 times out of 100, it would
> not
> > be necessary to change anything.
>
> That was the reason why I did it. And I got a lot of positive feedback
> from users of my package.
>
> >
> > I'd be lying if I said the current export convention didn't trip me up
> > occasionally. It's been 6 years since I switched completely from
> Photoshop,
> > so in my case, it's not really blamable on convention anylonger. :)
> >
> > My 2p.
> >
> > -C
> >
> >
> >
> >> On 1 Mar 2016 8:43 am, "Tobias Ellinghaus"  wrote:
> >>
> >> Am Montag, 29. Februar 2016, 23:57:10 schrieb C R:
>  That would be terrible. Users not understanding the concept would
> >> suddenly
>  be
>  facing images where they can just save to JPEG while others can't, but
> >> PNG
>  is
>  still enabled (because they somehow added an alpha channel), and even
>  other
>  images support XCF only (maybe because the layer is bigger than the
>  image).
> >>
> >> (I used "just" in the sense of "without any further actions" and not
> >> "only".)
> >>
> >>> No, that's not what I'm suggesting. If you import a jpeg for example,
> do
> >>> your editing, and end up with an alpha channel somehow, the save could
> >>> still default to the .jpg (the jpeg save dialogue could display a
> warning
> >>> that transparency will be lost). That does not prevent the user from
> >>> requesting a .png (by specifying that extension). It also does not
> >> prevent
> >>> the user saving as an xcf either for that matter.
> >>>
> >>> When closing the file, if the file is not saved as an xcf, and there is
> >>> extra data to be lost, well, the warning about it is there anyway.
> >>
> >> But that would mean to just go back to the status quo ante, i.e., revert
> >> the
> >> save/export dichotomy and bring back saving to arbitrary formats.
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >>> My 2p.
> >>> -C
> >>
> >> Tobias
> >>
> >> [...]
> >> ___
> >> gimp-developer-list mailing list
> >> List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
> >> List membership:
> >> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
> >> List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list
> > ___
> > gimp-developer-list mailing list
> > List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
> > List membership:
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
> > List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list
> ___
> gimp-developer-list mailing list
> List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
> List membership:
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
> List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list
>
___
gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list


Re: [Gimp-developer] Export instead save directly

2016-03-01 Thread Simone Karin Lehmann

> Am 01.03.2016 um 15:05 schrieb C R :
> 
> If Save intelligently determines the file format that is most likely to be
> used to save, Export should not be necessary. Just "Save" and "Save As"
> would suffice.
> 
That's nearly exactly what I did with my patched version on 
http://gimp.lisanet.de
I even made this a configurable option in the Preferences dialog. 
So, if one is interested, have a look at my patches. 

> We could use the "multi layer" & "layer outside layer boundaries"

I'm currently testing only for 'multiple layers' but it's quite easy to add 
other tests. 

> convention to suggest that the user save to xcf, as normal to preserve what
> they are seeing in the editor. The workflow would just involve flattening
> the image (which also gets rid of alpha) first before saving to make the
> Save default to the imported file format as a save suggestion. This has the
> advantage of being intuitive and changeable merely by typing the required
> file extension. For my various workflows, 99 times out of 100, it would not
> be necessary to change anything.

That was the reason why I did it. And I got a lot of positive feedback from 
users of my package. 

> 
> I'd be lying if I said the current export convention didn't trip me up
> occasionally. It's been 6 years since I switched completely from Photoshop,
> so in my case, it's not really blamable on convention anylonger. :)
> 
> My 2p.
> 
> -C
> 
> 
> 
>> On 1 Mar 2016 8:43 am, "Tobias Ellinghaus"  wrote:
>> 
>> Am Montag, 29. Februar 2016, 23:57:10 schrieb C R:
 That would be terrible. Users not understanding the concept would
>> suddenly
 be
 facing images where they can just save to JPEG while others can't, but
>> PNG
 is
 still enabled (because they somehow added an alpha channel), and even
 other
 images support XCF only (maybe because the layer is bigger than the
 image).
>> 
>> (I used "just" in the sense of "without any further actions" and not
>> "only".)
>> 
>>> No, that's not what I'm suggesting. If you import a jpeg for example, do
>>> your editing, and end up with an alpha channel somehow, the save could
>>> still default to the .jpg (the jpeg save dialogue could display a warning
>>> that transparency will be lost). That does not prevent the user from
>>> requesting a .png (by specifying that extension). It also does not
>> prevent
>>> the user saving as an xcf either for that matter.
>>> 
>>> When closing the file, if the file is not saved as an xcf, and there is
>>> extra data to be lost, well, the warning about it is there anyway.
>> 
>> But that would mean to just go back to the status quo ante, i.e., revert
>> the
>> save/export dichotomy and bring back saving to arbitrary formats.
>> 
>> [...]
>> 
>>> My 2p.
>>> -C
>> 
>> Tobias
>> 
>> [...]
>> ___
>> gimp-developer-list mailing list
>> List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
>> List membership:
>> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
>> List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list
> ___
> gimp-developer-list mailing list
> List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
> List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
> List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list
___
gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list


Re: [Gimp-developer] Export instead save directly

2016-03-01 Thread C R
If Save intelligently determines the file format that is most likely to be
used to save, Export should not be necessary. Just "Save" and "Save As"
would suffice.

We could use the "multi layer" & "layer outside layer boundaries"
convention to suggest that the user save to xcf, as normal to preserve what
they are seeing in the editor. The workflow would just involve flattening
the image (which also gets rid of alpha) first before saving to make the
Save default to the imported file format as a save suggestion. This has the
advantage of being intuitive and changeable merely by typing the required
file extension. For my various workflows, 99 times out of 100, it would not
be necessary to change anything.

I'd be lying if I said the current export convention didn't trip me up
occasionally. It's been 6 years since I switched completely from Photoshop,
so in my case, it's not really blamable on convention anylonger. :)

My 2p.

-C



On 1 Mar 2016 8:43 am, "Tobias Ellinghaus"  wrote:

> Am Montag, 29. Februar 2016, 23:57:10 schrieb C R:
> > > That would be terrible. Users not understanding the concept would
> suddenly
> > > be
> > > facing images where they can just save to JPEG while others can't, but
> PNG
> > > is
> > > still enabled (because they somehow added an alpha channel), and even
> > > other
> > > images support XCF only (maybe because the layer is bigger than the
> > > image).
>
> (I used "just" in the sense of "without any further actions" and not
> "only".)
>
> > No, that's not what I'm suggesting. If you import a jpeg for example, do
> > your editing, and end up with an alpha channel somehow, the save could
> > still default to the .jpg (the jpeg save dialogue could display a warning
> > that transparency will be lost). That does not prevent the user from
> > requesting a .png (by specifying that extension). It also does not
> prevent
> > the user saving as an xcf either for that matter.
> >
> > When closing the file, if the file is not saved as an xcf, and there is
> > extra data to be lost, well, the warning about it is there anyway.
>
> But that would mean to just go back to the status quo ante, i.e., revert
> the
> save/export dichotomy and bring back saving to arbitrary formats.
>
> [...]
>
> > My 2p.
> > -C
>
> Tobias
>
> [...]
> ___
> gimp-developer-list mailing list
> List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
> List membership:
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
> List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list
>
>
___
gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list


Re: [Gimp-developer] Export instead save directly

2016-03-01 Thread Tobias Ellinghaus
Am Montag, 29. Februar 2016, 23:57:10 schrieb C R:
> > That would be terrible. Users not understanding the concept would suddenly
> > be
> > facing images where they can just save to JPEG while others can't, but PNG
> > is
> > still enabled (because they somehow added an alpha channel), and even
> > other
> > images support XCF only (maybe because the layer is bigger than the
> > image).

(I used "just" in the sense of "without any further actions" and not "only".)

> No, that's not what I'm suggesting. If you import a jpeg for example, do
> your editing, and end up with an alpha channel somehow, the save could
> still default to the .jpg (the jpeg save dialogue could display a warning
> that transparency will be lost). That does not prevent the user from
> requesting a .png (by specifying that extension). It also does not prevent
> the user saving as an xcf either for that matter.
> 
> When closing the file, if the file is not saved as an xcf, and there is
> extra data to be lost, well, the warning about it is there anyway.

But that would mean to just go back to the status quo ante, i.e., revert the 
save/export dichotomy and bring back saving to arbitrary formats.

[...]

> My 2p.
> -C

Tobias

[...]

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list


Re: [Gimp-developer] Export instead save directly

2016-03-01 Thread wwp
Hello Pavel,


On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 22:21:49 +0100 pa...@pamsoft.cz wrote:

> 2. Do you know some photo/image viewer which can display xcf files? I am not 
> aware of any. Maybe there is some, but it is not important at the moment. The 
> important message is, that poeple (I appologise to Alex for speaking on 
> behalf of other peaple than I am) usually don't want to store they images as 
> xcf. I bet most often they want to load their JPEG from their camera, make 
> some edits, color enhancemnts, etc. and SAVE it back as JPEG. That's all.
[snip]

XnView (MP version at least) does show xcf :-).


Regards,

-- 
wwp


pgptvZTMo5O2k.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list


Re: [Gimp-developer] Export instead save directly

2016-02-29 Thread C R
>
>
> That would be terrible. Users not understanding the concept would suddenly
> be
> facing images where they can just save to JPEG while others can't, but PNG
> is
> still enabled (because they somehow added an alpha channel), and even other
> images support XCF only (maybe because the layer is bigger than the
> image).


No, that's not what I'm suggesting. If you import a jpeg for example, do
your editing, and end up with an alpha channel somehow, the save could
still default to the .jpg (the jpeg save dialogue could display a warning
that transparency will be lost). That does not prevent the user from
requesting a .png (by specifying that extension). It also does not prevent
the user saving as an xcf either for that matter.

When closing the file, if the file is not saved as an xcf, and there is
extra data to be lost, well, the warning about it is there anyway.

I'm also okay with saying GIMP is for professionals, and just keeping it
the way it is, which is the way I use it, and like it just fine. That does
not mean I can't be open to making a few small changes for people who want
to use GIMP for basic edits without the technical stuff that I need "in the
way". Adding the above feature would not cripple my workflow, and I can see
the benefit to simpler needs of less advanced users.

My 2p.
-C





> So
> they would have three images that might look the same and seem to use the
> same
> features but GIMP seems to treat them different for no apparent reason.
> Internal state isn't that obvious after all. I assume that would be even
> more
> confusing.
>
> > -C
>
> Tobias
>
> [...]
> ___
> gimp-developer-list mailing list
> List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
> List membership:
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
> List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list
>
>
___
gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list


Re: [Gimp-developer] Export instead save directly

2016-02-29 Thread Tobias Ellinghaus
Am Montag, 29. Februar 2016, 23:07:57 schrieb C R:
> It would probably be okay to use "Save" in a case where there is not much
> data to be lost by doing so. Like if you flatten the layered image first.
> If you've done that without exporting anything, it's pretty safe to assume
> you wouldn't lose anything you were worried about by saving to the imported
> format.
> 
> So for the sake of disinterested people who are just making minor single
> layer adjustments, Save could default to the imported/opened format IFF
> there is not more than one layer.
> 
> To sum up:
> Multiple layers = Save = .xcf
> Single layer = Save = .jpg/.png/ imported file format
> 
> Maybe this is a way to put a much fought over issue to bed? :)
> 
> Just a thought.

That would be terrible. Users not understanding the concept would suddenly be 
facing images where they can just save to JPEG while others can't, but PNG is 
still enabled (because they somehow added an alpha channel), and even other 
images support XCF only (maybe because the layer is bigger than the image). So 
they would have three images that might look the same and seem to use the same 
features but GIMP seems to treat them different for no apparent reason. 
Internal state isn't that obvious after all. I assume that would be even more 
confusing.

> -C

Tobias

[...]

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list


Re: [Gimp-developer] Export instead save directly

2016-02-29 Thread Michael Schumacher


On 03/01/2016 12:07 AM, C R wrote:

> To sum up:
> Multiple layers = Save = .xcf
> Single layer = Save = .jpg/.png/ imported file format

This would overload the Save action again - something we explicitly got
rid of by separating Save and Export.

Save   = XCF
Export = Everything else

Simple as that.


-- 
Regards,
Michael
GPG: 96A8 B38A 728A 577D 724D 60E5 F855 53EC B36D 4CDD
___
gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list


Re: [Gimp-developer] Export instead save directly

2016-02-29 Thread Tobias Ellinghaus
Am Montag, 29. Februar 2016, 22:21:49 schrieb pa...@pamsoft.cz:
> Hello,

Hi.

[...]

> 2. Do you know some photo/image viewer which can display xcf files? I am
> not aware of any. Maybe there is some, but it is not important at the
> moment. The important message is, that poeple (I appologise to Alex for
> speaking on behalf of other peaple than I am) usually don't want to
> store they images as xcf.

How is that relevant? When you are done with editing you can still export a 
final flat copy to JPEG for easy viewing while still keeping your working XCF 
for backup, later tweaking of your work and even to help you proof that an 
image is actually yours. For cases where that is not needed just using export 
is fine.

> I bet most often they want to load their JPEG
> from their camera, make some edits, color enhancemnts, etc. and SAVE it
> back as JPEG. That's all.

While there are certainly people who want to do that it's definitely not the 
target GIMP tries to cater for. As being said already in this thread, GIMP 
tries to support professional users in a workflow typical for them. And that 
certainly neither includes roundtrips through a lossy format like JPEG nor 
writing to original files.

So yes, users might have to learn that there are export and overwrite now, but 
as users of a professional tool it shouldn't be asked too much to invest those 
few seconds to understand these concepts and remember them. This is not a 
single click tool but a serious application that you need to invest some of 
your time in to learn it. I fear there is no easy way out.

> Pavel

Tobias, not being part of the GIMP team and therefore telling his personal 
opinion

[...]

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list


Re: [Gimp-developer] Export instead save directly

2016-02-29 Thread wwp
Hello,


On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 19:31:00 + "A. da Mek"  wrote:

>  > I still think that there should be a file->import as it's really hard to 
> tell people JPEG and PNG are not native to GIMP when it opens them just fine. 
>  
> 
> Yes, I had the same thought; the current system is asymmetric. If it is 
> insisted that non-xcf files cannot be saved and are exported instead, so they 
> shall be also only imported instead of opened. But when I can open a file, 
> then I expect that I am able also to save it.

That's probably the real point.


> OTOH, as the application can detect which format is being opened, and choose 
> automatically between opening of the native format and importing of other 
> formats, so maybe the best solution could be simply change the label from 
> "open" to "open or import".

"open" is generic enough. "import" (if it exists besides "open")
usually implies that you convert from a format that is not the format
used internally or not the intended format for the application.
"export" has the same meaning (but other direction). "save" is generic
too. You can also think about other generic terms, like "load" and
"store".


Regards,

-- 
wwp


pgp03NoDZM3yl.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list


Re: [Gimp-developer] Export instead save directly

2016-02-29 Thread Liam R. E. Quin
On Mon, 2016-02-29 at 18:22 +, A. da Mek wrote:
> > 
> But what I am trying to explain is that they do not know that it is 
> easily worked around.

A possibility might be to have a link on the save dialogue, "export to
non-GIMP-native formats" that gets rid of the save dialogue and brings
up export *in the same folder*, rather like "edit these settings as
curves" in levels.

I still think that there should be a file->import as it's really hard
to tell people JPEG and PNG are not native to GIMP when it opens them
just fine.

Liam


-- 
Liam R. E. Quin 


___
gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list


Re: [Gimp-developer] Export instead save directly

2016-02-29 Thread A. da Mek

As for sticking with 2.6 and refusing to upgrade: really? Well, it's
your choice, of course, but there's no way I'd stick with an older
version just because of something that's so easily worked around


But what I am trying to explain is that they do not know that it is 
easily worked around. They see that it is forbidden to save non-xcf 
files, and so they (wrongly) suppose that they will have to use "export 
as" and select the filename every time when they want to save the opened 
file (which of course would be very bothering). They overlook the item 
"overwrite", which is not much intuitive (and moreover is seen only when 
a non-xcf file is opened), and do not realize that this is their old 
"save" in disguise. So they think that the new version is aimed only for 
the experts who are working primarily with xcf files, not for simple 
editing jpg and png files.

And when they read:

   "We want GIMP to be a tool used by professionals who work on complex 
projects.

This is our target audience, and it has certain workflows.
We want to change GIMP to honor those workflows,"

then they take it as the confirmation of their impression.
And the release notes say:

"Saving an image can only be done in the XCF format which is GIMP’s 
native file format, able to save all kinds of information necessary for 
works in progress.

To export into other formats File->Export… needs to be used."

Although the release notes then say also:

"There are some optimizations for alternative workflows such as opening 
a jpg, polishing it, and quickly exporting back to the original file."


this still uses the word "export", so it may be misleading to user not 
accustomed with this new terminology.


Before these long explanations, I suppose that it would be much more 
understandable to write simply:


"Save" was renamed to "overwrite" (in the context of editing non-xcf files).
___
gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list


Re: [Gimp-developer] Export instead save directly

2016-02-29 Thread Elle Stone

On 02/29/2016 12:37 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:

Well, how many of them do you expect to read release notes?

P.S. On of the ideas we had for future point releases (3.0, 3.2 etc.)
is a dialog that runs the first time the new version is launched and
guides users through major changes.


That sounds really nice!

Elle
___
gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list


Re: [Gimp-developer] Export instead save directly

2016-02-29 Thread Alexandre Prokoudine
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 8:29 PM, A. da Mek wrote:

> How many of common users do you suppose to be subscribed to the developer
> list?

Well, how many of them do you expect to read release notes?

P.S. On of the ideas we had for future point releases (3.0, 3.2 etc.)
is a dialog that runs the first time the new version is launched and
guides users through major changes.

Alex
___
gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list


Re: [Gimp-developer] Export instead save directly

2016-02-29 Thread A. da Mek

And that msg has been explained *here* ad nauseam.  Please take a moment
to view the list archives.


How many of common users do you suppose to be subscribed to the 
developer list? To say nothing of reading archives four years back.
Imagine a common user who is not an expert on bitmap editing, and the 
GIMP is for him only one of a dozen of applications used now and then.

___
gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list


Re: [Gimp-developer] Export instead save directly

2016-02-29 Thread Shlomi Fish
Hi all,

On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 13:15:49 +
C R  wrote:

> Also, the old way of forcing a user to bypass a warning message every time
> he/she wants to save to the loaded format is (workflow-wise) much worse
> than just learning the "Export" hotkey imho. Also, it's clearly not a
> "flaw"; it's not broken, it's working as intended.
> If there were a vote, I'd vote to keep it the new way (and I process a very
> very high volume of product photos with GIMP). I reckon people are more
> likely to complain about a change in UI conventions than praise it... so
> here's one praising it. How many theoretical user votes is that worth? ;)
> 

just to note that I, too, am perfectly fine with the new save/export behaviour,
and accept it and understand the motivation behind it.

Regards,

Shlomi Fish

-- 
---
Shlomi Fish   http://www.shlomifish.org/
Understand what Open Source is - http://shlom.in/oss-fs

The conversation about how someone shouldn’t do something in an IRC channel is
always at least twice as long as the text the accused person created in the
first place — Chris62vw’s Rule

Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .
___
gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list


Re: [Gimp-developer] Export instead save directly

2016-02-29 Thread Paka
* A. da Mek  [02-29-16 10:20]:
> >If there were a vote, I'd vote to keep it the new way (and I process a very
> >very high volume of product photos with GIMP).
> 
> But those are two different questions:
> 1) Whether to use the "new" interface or the "old" one. This was already
> decided long ago.
> 2) If the users, accustomed to the "old" interface, are properly informed. I
> would recommend some short explanation like this:
> When you want to "save" a non-xcf file, use "overwrite" instead.
> And when you want to "save as" to a non-xcf file, use "export as" instead.

And that msg has been explained *here* ad nauseam.  Please take a moment
to view the list archives.


-- 
(paka)Patrick Shanahan   Plainfield, Indiana, USA  @ptilopteri
http://en.opensuse.orgopenSUSE Community Memberfacebook/ptilopteri
http://wahoo.no-ip.orgPhoto Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2
Registered Linux User #207535@ http://linuxcounter.net
___
gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list


Re: [Gimp-developer] Export instead save directly

2016-02-29 Thread Akkana Peck
Alexandre Prokoudine writes:
> >Also, if you think that changes of this sort should be officially
> >talked about in any other way than they already have been, I'm
> >listening.

A. da Mek writes:
> A warning on the download page.
> A tip of the day (if possible the first one).

The Save-Export split is described in the Release Notes for 2.8,
linked from the downloads page:
http://www.gimp.org/release-notes/gimp-2.8.html
It's always a good idea to read the release notes when upgrading
software if you want to be warned about user interface changes.

(Do I always remember to do that myself? No. But if I forget to
look, I don't complain afterward about not having been informed.)

The change was also discussed on the gimp-user list starting in
early May 2012. (It was discussed on IRC and the developer list much
earlier than that, of course, but users aren't expected to see that.)
And it has been discussed a lot since then -- my mail folder tracking
this topic is up to 1722 messages now, and that doesn't count forums.

I don't like the Save-Export split either (and said so in 2012), but
it's baffling to see people complaining about not being notified in 2016
about a change that was clearly documented and discussed back in 2012.

As for sticking with 2.6 and refusing to upgrade: really? Well, it's
your choice, of course, but there's no way I'd stick with an older
version just because of something that's so easily worked around in
a program as configurable as GIMP. You can learn to use export, you
can customize your key bindings, you can use a plug-in that does
what you want (that's what I did: google for "gimp saver").
GIMP 2.8 has some great new features and 2.10 will have even more.
You're free not to upgrade, but you're shortchanging yourself.

...Akkana
___
gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list


Re: [Gimp-developer] Export instead save directly

2016-02-29 Thread A. da Mek

If there were a vote, I'd vote to keep it the new way (and I process a very
very high volume of product photos with GIMP).


But those are two different questions:
1) Whether to use the "new" interface or the "old" one. This was already 
decided long ago.
2) If the users, accustomed to the "old" interface, are properly 
informed. I would recommend some short explanation like this:

When you want to "save" a non-xcf file, use "overwrite" instead.
And when you want to "save as" to a non-xcf file, use "export as" instead.

___
gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list


Re: [Gimp-developer] Export instead save directly

2016-02-29 Thread Alexandre Prokoudine
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 5:16 PM, wwp wrote:

> A pain in
> the *ss to deal w/ user support sometimes, a bigger pain when users
> come from Windows userland (or other kind of dumb users).

I don't think this kind of generalization is really appropriate.

> The other very important (to my eyes) point when dealing w/ usability
> is something that may shut the mouth of angry birds:

Even though some discussions are annoying (mostly because of
repetitive statements), this is not about shutting any mouths. This is
about creating software that does the job.

Alex
___
gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list


Re: [Gimp-developer] Export instead save directly

2016-02-29 Thread wwp
Hello,


On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 13:15:49 + C R  wrote:

> Also, the old way of forcing a user to bypass a warning message every time
> he/she wants to save to the loaded format is (workflow-wise) much worse
> than just learning the "Export" hotkey imho. Also, it's clearly not a
> "flaw"; it's not broken, it's working as intended.
> If there were a vote, I'd vote to keep it the new way (and I process a very
> very high volume of product photos with GIMP). I reckon people are more
> likely to complain about a change in UI conventions than praise it... so
> here's one praising it. How many theoretical user votes is that worth? ;)

That's it! I'm a long-time user of Gimp (this is not an excuse for
being right when arguing :-P), and even if I got hurt twice or thrice with
the Save as vs Export change, I quickly decided to think about the good
reasons for this change, accepted them (and changed the hotkey to
export with Ctrl S - hah, I quite never save as .xcf when I process
photos, I only use the .xcf storing when I work on graphical
constructions).

To bring my 2 cents WRT the exchange between Alexandre and A. da Mek,
I think that it's very different/difficult to get feedback from users
when you don't sell a product more or less directly and distribute it a
passive way (downloads on a website for instance). Alexandre is right
(and I well know this, being part of commercial and open source
projects for more than 15 years), generally the only guys you hear are
the ones who make more noise than the silent ones; and the noisy guys
are most of the time the angry ones, specifically the ones with a
expansive character and an egocentric/narrow way of thinking. A pain in
the *ss to deal w/ user support sometimes, a bigger pain when users
come from Windows userland (or other kind of dumb users).

I saw the Save as vs Export thing discussed in many places but it has
been well explained and every time it made sense to people who were
asking why, it's just difficult for some guys to understand that the
file format in GIMP is xcf and that jpg/tif/etc. are exports, exactly
like in *office, where odt is the file format and PDF an export for
printing/exanging.

The other very important (to my eyes) point when dealing w/ usability
is something that may shut the mouth of angry birds:
"people" (including me) were complaining about the multiple-window GUI
scheme in Gimp 2.6, and for years. Gimp developers finally added a
single-window GUI scheme. Isn't that quite a compromise and acceptation
from them to (optionally) comply with "standards" and user requests
when they make sense?


Regards,

> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 12:27 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine <
> alexandre.prokoud...@gmail.com> wrote:  
> 
> > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 3:20 PM, A. da Mek wrote:  
> > >>> How can we know how many of them there is, if they simply downgrade to
> > >>> 2.6
> > >>> and do not bother to discuss it somewhere?  
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> One of the first things I learned when I was in the marketing and PR
> > >> business is that unhappy customers do complain. A lot.  
> > >
> > >
> > > A producer of a commercial product gets the complaints from the customers
> > > who paid for that product and are nor satisfied with it. He does not  
> > know if  
> > > there are any customers who were aware of the flaws of his product  
> > already  
> > > before they bought it, and so they simply decided to buy another product. 
> > >  
> >
> > This is simply not how it really works.
> >
> > Alex
> > ___
> > gimp-developer-list mailing list
> > List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
> > List membership:
> > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
> > List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list
> >  
> ___
> gimp-developer-list mailing list
> List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
> List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
> List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

-- 
wwp


pgp1gwsR3IEu9.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list


Re: [Gimp-developer] Export instead save directly

2016-02-29 Thread C R
Also, the old way of forcing a user to bypass a warning message every time
he/she wants to save to the loaded format is (workflow-wise) much worse
than just learning the "Export" hotkey imho. Also, it's clearly not a
"flaw"; it's not broken, it's working as intended.
If there were a vote, I'd vote to keep it the new way (and I process a very
very high volume of product photos with GIMP). I reckon people are more
likely to complain about a change in UI conventions than praise it... so
here's one praising it. How many theoretical user votes is that worth? ;)

My 2p.
-C

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 12:27 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine <
alexandre.prokoud...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 3:20 PM, A. da Mek wrote:
> >>> How can we know how many of them there is, if they simply downgrade to
> >>> 2.6
> >>> and do not bother to discuss it somewhere?
> >>
> >>
> >> One of the first things I learned when I was in the marketing and PR
> >> business is that unhappy customers do complain. A lot.
> >
> >
> > A producer of a commercial product gets the complaints from the customers
> > who paid for that product and are nor satisfied with it. He does not
> know if
> > there are any customers who were aware of the flaws of his product
> already
> > before they bought it, and so they simply decided to buy another product.
>
> This is simply not how it really works.
>
> Alex
> ___
> gimp-developer-list mailing list
> List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
> List membership:
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
> List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list
>
___
gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list


Re: [Gimp-developer] Export instead save directly

2016-02-29 Thread Alexandre Prokoudine
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 3:20 PM, A. da Mek wrote:
>>> How can we know how many of them there is, if they simply downgrade to
>>> 2.6
>>> and do not bother to discuss it somewhere?
>>
>>
>> One of the first things I learned when I was in the marketing and PR
>> business is that unhappy customers do complain. A lot.
>
>
> A producer of a commercial product gets the complaints from the customers
> who paid for that product and are nor satisfied with it. He does not know if
> there are any customers who were aware of the flaws of his product already
> before they bought it, and so they simply decided to buy another product.

This is simply not how it really works.

Alex
___
gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list


Re: [Gimp-developer] Export instead save directly

2016-02-29 Thread A. da Mek

How can we know how many of them there is, if they simply downgrade to 2.6
and do not bother to discuss it somewhere?


One of the first things I learned when I was in the marketing and PR
business is that unhappy customers do complain. A lot.


A producer of a commercial product gets the complaints from the 
customers who paid for that product and are nor satisfied with it. He 
does not know if there are any customers who were aware of the flaws of 
his product already before they bought it, and so they simply decided to 
buy another product.



Also, if you think that changes of this sort should be officially
talked about in any other way than they already have been, I'm
listening.


A warning on the download page.
A tip of the day (if possible the first one).
___
gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list


Re: [Gimp-developer] Export instead save directly

2016-02-29 Thread Alexandre Prokoudine
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 12:34 PM, A. da Mek wrote:

>> Many of who? There is no indication whatsoever that the group of people
>> who
>> reverted to 2.6 is any large.
>
>
> How can we know how many of them there is, if they simply downgrade to 2.6
> and do not bother to discuss it somewhere?

One of the first things I learned when I was in the marketing and PR
business is that unhappy customers do complain. A lot. Whereas people
who are fine with changes rarely talk, let alone be vocal. So when you
seriously mess up, you get no end of complaints from a lot of people
and very little support.

What we do have here, however, is a small group of users who are
unhappy with this change and who are very vocal. That's telling.

Also, if you think that changes of this sort should be officially
talked about in any other way than they already have been, I'm
listening.

Alex
___
gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list


Re: [Gimp-developer] Export instead save directly

2016-02-29 Thread A. da Mek

But it does be a shame that many of us were
forced by this unfortunate change to revert to 2.6.


Many of who? There is no indication whatsoever that the group of people who
reverted to 2.6 is any large.


How can we know how many of them there is, if they simply downgrade to 
2.6 and do not bother to discuss it somewhere?



then we consider this version broken


If I may just ask, could you please drop "we" and start talking in singular
noun please?


We are at least two: I and the user who started this thread.
I did not opened this matter for myself and only lurked here to see if I 
am the only one who sees it as a serious problem. Once I learned how to 
save with the new user interface, I have no personal interest in this 
cause.
But now when someone else came with with this topic, I fear that there 
may be much more of such users who were discouraged from using the new 
version, which would be a pity, because the GIMP is an excellent 
application.


___
gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list


Re: [Gimp-developer] Export instead save directly

2016-02-29 Thread Kevin Payne



From: gimp-developer-list <gimp-developer-list-boun...@gnome.org> on behalf of 
A. da Mek <a.da_m...@ufoni.cz>
Sent: 29 February 2016 08:35
To: gimp-developer
Subject: Re: [Gimp-developer] Export instead save directly

...But as I already said, this would be not much important if the
users were properly informed about this contra-intuitive change.
___


To which I can only refer you to the informative article that Alexandre wrote 4 
years ago:
http://libregraphicsworld.org/blog/entry/gimp-2.8-understanding-ui-changes
___
gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list


Re: [Gimp-developer] Export instead save directly

2016-02-29 Thread A. da Mek

01234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789
>> I suppose that many users returned back to 2.6 for this reason.
>> There should be a clear warning that saving is still possible, only 
it was renamed to "overwrite".
>> IMO, the intention of the authors was to educate the users and 
remind them that at the opening of a file, the data are internally 
converted to the working format, and at the saving they are converted 
back to original format. But this intention missed its goal, because the 
user is not informed what and why was changed, and when he sees that the 
application behaves in a weird and user-unfriendly way, then the 
simplest solution is to downgrade back to the last sane version.

>
> I think the real intention was to prevent the user from accidentally 
writing to a file format that throws away any layers which have been 
created and other useful image information.


Which is in other words the same what I wrote, or at least what I wanted 
to express.


> It's a shame to revert to 2.6 just for this reason. You miss out on a 
LOT of new functionality


For an average user, GIMP already has everything what we need. But it 
does be a shame that many of us were forced by this unfortunate change 
to revert to 2.6.


> and all you've really done is save yourself the minor trouble of 
learning a different save hotkey combo.


Of course, once I know that saving is still possible, it is only a minor 
nuisance to use it under another name. (This could be repaired without 
changing the code, only by a different localization.)
But the serious harm is that when we upgrade to 2.8 and see that "save" 
does not behave in the expected, logical and traditional way (as it ever 
behaved in previous versions and as still behaves in other applications 
(for example Inkscape)), that is to save to the file which was opened, 
then we consider this version broken and cannot guess that this function 
was only hidden on another place and under a different name.
My first reaction was exactly the same as of the user who started this 
thread: to downgrade to 2.6, and so I suppose that we two are not the 
only ones who did so.
The only reason why I did not give up and continued to search for 
further information about this change (and why I joined this mail-list) 
is that for me, the GIMP was always a flag-ship of open-source 
applications and one of proofs that they are better that the commercial 
ones, because they are written by the users who know what they need. So 
I was very disappointed when I found this change of functionality and 
was wondering what happened and why. IMO, the usual approach of 
open-source programmers is "I need a feature, so I am adding it"; 
whereas the intention for this change was "I want to prevent other users 
to do something; I know better than they what is good for them."
When I "save as" (now "export as") into a format other than xcf, or 
"save" (now "overwrite") after opening a file of a format other than 
xcf,  and then "close view", the warning dialog appears which informs me 
that some editions can be lost; so I see no reason why to have separate 
menu items for "save" versus "overwrite" and "save as" versus "export 
as". But as I already said, this would be not much important if the 
users were properly informed about this contra-intuitive change.

___
gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list


Re: [Gimp-developer] Export instead save directly

2016-02-28 Thread C R
I think the real intention was to prevent the user from accidentally
writing to a file format that throws away any layers which have been
created and other useful image information. It was a little strange at
first for me, but I've gotten quite used to the hotkeys for exporting. It's
a shame to revert to 2.6 just for this reason. You miss out on a LOT of new
functionality, and all you've really done is save yourself the minor
trouble of learning a different save hotkey combo. Ctrl-E = Export or Alt +
F + W = overwrite. I use it as a celebration of each successful image edit
(Alt [F]or the [W]in!) ;)

There, now you may remember it. :)
Hope you reconsider!

My 2p.

-C


On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 9:38 PM, A. da Mek  wrote:

> > Therefore, I will
> > probably still to work with the 2.6.11 version on.
> > For this reason I will Gimp 2.8.16 uninstalled.
>
> I suppose that many users returned back to 2.6 for this reason.
> There should be a clear warning that saving is still possible, only it was
> renamed to "overwrite".
> IMO, the intention of the authors was to educate the users and remind them
> that at the opening of a file, the data are internally converted to the
> working format, and at the saving they are converted back to original
> format. But this intention missed its goal, because the user is not
> informed what and why was changed, and when he sees that the application
> behaves in a weird and user-unfriendly way, then the simplest solution is
> to downgrade back to the last sane version.
>
> ___
> gimp-developer-list mailing list
> List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
> List membership:
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
> List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list
>
___
gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list


Re: [Gimp-developer] Export instead save directly

2016-02-28 Thread A. da Mek

> Therefore, I will
> probably still to work with the 2.6.11 version on.
> For this reason I will Gimp 2.8.16 uninstalled.

I suppose that many users returned back to 2.6 for this reason.
There should be a clear warning that saving is still possible, only it 
was renamed to "overwrite".
IMO, the intention of the authors was to educate the users and remind 
them that at the opening of a file, the data are internally converted to 
the working format, and at the saving they are converted back to 
original format. But this intention missed its goal, because the user is 
not informed what and why was changed, and when he sees that the 
application behaves in a weird and user-unfriendly way, then the 
simplest solution is to downgrade back to the last sane version.

___
gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list


Re: [Gimp-developer] Export instead save directly

2016-02-28 Thread Paka
* Alexandra Sachsenweger  [02-28-16 11:27]:
> Hello,
> I have a little problem with the 2.8.16 version of Gimp. I'm not really so
> clear that other file formats can not be saved directly. I save my photos
> like in PNG and it must for this version export to PNG. What is this with
> the export? I find extremely impractical. Therefore, I will probably still
> to work with the 2.6.11 version on.

Because the image withing gimp is not png.  Export equals save to a
different format.  Export it is.

> For this reason I will Gimp 2.8.16 uninstalled.

You are welcome to your choice.

-- 
(paka)Patrick Shanahan   Plainfield, Indiana, USA  @ptilopteri
http://en.opensuse.orgopenSUSE Community Memberfacebook/ptilopteri
http://wahoo.no-ip.orgPhoto Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2
Registered Linux User #207535@ http://linuxcounter.net
___
gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list