Re: [gimp-devel] Re: Edit Fille behaviour change?
On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 12:53:20PM +0100, Raphael Quinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Count me in. I volunteer for making the required changes in Script-Fu. I'll do all the changes in the perl scripts. -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | |
Re: [gimp-devel] Re: Edit Fille behaviour change?
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I agree with marc here. Nobody expects Gimp 1.0 / 1.2 compatibility. > > If we change this right after the 1.2 release we would force people > > who want to use new plugins to a probably really unstable developers > > version. IMHO this is bad. > > Ok, so who is going to do it? We will certainly not accept a change as > it was done the last time. All scripts and other affected spots have to > be changed! Count me in. I volunteer for making the required changes in Script-Fu. I cannot change Perl-Fu because I cannot test the scripts, but I hope that Marc or someone else will be able to change the Perl scripts. I will submit a patch as soon as possible. Maybe tomorrow morning if I have some spare time this evening. I have also had too many cases of "Fill -> Undo -> Swap colors -> Fill" so I would be glad to see that changed before 1.2. -Raphael
Re: [gimp-devel] Re: Edit Fille behaviour change?
> I agree with marc here. Nobody expects Gimp 1.0 / 1.2 compatibility. > If we change this right after the 1.2 release we would force people > who want to use new plugins to a probably really unstable developers > version. IMHO this is bad. Ok, so who is going to do it? We will certainly not accept a change as it was done the last time. All scripts and other affected spots have to be changed! Salut, Sven
Re: [gimp-devel] Re: Edit Fille behaviour change?
Marc Lehmann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Kevin Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From some of the other comments on the mailing list here, perhaps its > > something that should be changed after 1.2 is out. Many scripts may have to > > I don't think so: if you need to do an incompatible change, do it as early > as possible. If we break it now, people will need to change things for 1.2, > but the devel version and the released version will act the same. In other > words: each such change, done early, will remove one further source for > incompatibility between gimp-1.2 and 1.3. I agree with marc here. Nobody expects Gimp 1.0 / 1.2 compatibility. If we change this right after the 1.2 release we would force people who want to use new plugins to a probably really unstable developers version. IMHO this is bad. Bye, Simon -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.home.unix-ag.org/simon/
Re: Edit Fille behaviour change?
On Sun, Feb 13, 2000 at 09:24:54PM -0500, Kevin Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From some of the other comments on the mailing list here, perhaps its > something that should be changed after 1.2 is out. Many scripts may have to I don't think so: if you need to do an incompatible change, do it as early as possible. If we break it now, people will need to change things for 1.2, but the devel version and the released version will act the same. In other words: each such change, done early, will remove one further source for incompatibility between gimp-1.2 and 1.3. This is valid when a) the change can be made before 1.2 (including required fixes) and b) gimp-1.2 will stay as long as 1.0 did. -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | |
Re: Edit Fille behaviour change?
> So I am not the only one that has the usage pattern with fill listed above. > I don't know if its from other graphics programs I have used or just what > made sense to me but I expected fill to use the foreground colour. I mean > after all, you don't expect the pencil tool to draw with the background > colour. > > From some of the other comments on the mailing list here, perhaps its > something that should be changed after 1.2 is out. Many scripts may have to > be adjusted and some of us may have to adjust the way we use GIMP slightly > but I think it makes more sense to fix something that is a little odd > rather than live with it forevermore IMHO. I have reverted the patch that sneaked into CVS one day even so I totally agree that the behaviour should be changed. But all scripts and probably even some plug-ins make heavy use of it. Look into the Script-Fu scripts, they are full of (gimp-palette-set-background (`r g b)) (gimp-edit-fill drawable) We would have to change them all or we could introduce a weird hack that only changes the behaviour in the GUI, but wouldn't that be even more confusing? Salut, Sven
Re: Edit Fille behaviour change?
>My usage pattern is > >Fill => Undo => Swap Colours => Fill => Swap Colours >^ >+ insert a "this damnit fill braindamage e3stD%$&DFZG§ gimp thing" > here. > >Apart form the API changes (breaking _some_ plug-ins), I highly welcome >that change. But I'd also say it was not a bug. "but but" now is a good >time to change that. So I am not the only one that has the usage pattern with fill listed above. I don't know if its from other graphics programs I have used or just what made sense to me but I expected fill to use the foreground colour. I mean after all, you don't expect the pencil tool to draw with the background colour. From some of the other comments on the mailing list here, perhaps its something that should be changed after 1.2 is out. Many scripts may have to be adjusted and some of us may have to adjust the way we use GIMP slightly but I think it makes more sense to fix something that is a little odd rather than live with it forevermore IMHO. Cheers! Kevin. (http://www.interlog.com/~kcozens/) Internet:kcozens at interlog.com |"What are we going to do today, Borg?" or:ve3syb at rac.ca |"Same thing we always do, Pinkutus: Packet:ve3syb@va3bbs.#scon.on.ca.na| Try to assimilate the world!" #include | -Pinkutus & the Borg
Re: Edit Fille behaviour change?
On Sat, Feb 05, 2000 at 07:04:44PM +0200, Tuomas Kuosmanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > (unless we have alpha) and Fill should use foreground. but like I said > earlier, I dont really have an usage pattern on this feature so I cannot say > much.. My usage pattern is Fill => Undo => Swap Colours => Fill => Swap Colours ^ + insert a "this damnit fill braindamage e3stD%$&DFZG§ gimp thing" here. Apart form the API changes (breaking _some_ plug-ins), I highly welcome that change. But I'd also say it was not a bug. "but but" now is a good time to change that. -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | |
Re: Edit Fille behaviour change?
On Fri, 4 Feb 2000, Garry R. Osgood wrote: > Tom Rathborne wrote: > > > I just noticed this new CVS entry: > > > > Fri Feb 4 18:27:16 CET 2000 Stanislav Brabec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > * app/global_edit.c: edit_fill with foreground, not background. > > > > > Indeed, some of the 1.2 - revised books are well into pre-press > and some are out in the market. These books suffer too. > > >From "Gimp - Essential Reference (Covers GIMP 1.2, GTK 1.2 and > Script-Fu" by Alex Harford, published by New Riders (Page 32): > > "Clear and Fill are simple tools for working with selections > and entire layers... ... The Fill > ([Ctrl+.]) operation adds paint to the current selection. The selection > is always the *background* color even if there are layers or an Alpha > channel. Fill is therefore useless when working > with a flat image without an Alpha channel because it has the same > effect as Clear..." Well, the publisher knew that they were rushing this when they released the book already. I will note this on my errata page. -- Alex HarfordAlcohol and calculus don't mix. http://www.dowco.com/~alexh Don't drink and derive. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: (604) 225-0601
Re: Edit Fille behaviour change?
On Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 08:53:50PM -0500, Kelly Lynn Martin wrote: > On Fri, 4 Feb 2000 19:07:37 -0500, Zach Beane - MINT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > >>Fill (by default Ctrl-.) has filled using the background colour in > >>the GIMP for as long as I can remember. I don't think it's a bug > >[snip] > > >I agree. I have grown very accustomed to the existing behavior, and I > >don't think it should be changed. > > >I know it hasn't been customary in the past, but I think such a > >user-visible change should be discussed a little bit. > > I also concur and recommend a reversion. >From the logical point Clear should fill the image with background color (unless we have alpha) and Fill should use foreground. but like I said earlier, I dont really have an usage pattern on this feature so I cannot say much.. Tuomas -- .---( t i g e r t @ g i m p . o r g )---. | some stuff at http://tigert.gimp.org/ | `---'
Re: Edit Fille behaviour change?
On Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 07:07:37PM -0500, Zach Beane - MINT wrote: > On Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 06:59:57PM -0500, Tom Rathborne wrote: > > I just noticed this new CVS entry: > > > > Fri Feb 4 18:27:16 CET 2000 Stanislav Brabec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > * app/global_edit.c: edit_fill with foreground, not background. > > > > Checked the code. Looks like 'Fill' now uses the foreground. So I > > recompiled the GIMP. Indeed, the changes do what it says. > > > > Fill (by default Ctrl-.) has filled using the background colour in the > > GIMP for as long as I can remember. I don't think it's a bug > [snip] > > I agree. I have grown very accustomed to the existing behavior, and I don't > think it should be changed. What? I never noticed that existed.. ?! :) And I _thought_ I knew Gimp well.. However, I seem to use the DND more on this, dragging colors from palette has turned into a very much used feature for me.. And I first thought the DND doesnt really matter.. :) Speaking of that, has anyone else noticed that the DND does not always work on the current CVS gimp? It has been like that for about a week or so. I can drag the color there, but it just bounces the color back to the palette. Bucket fill works fine on the same place though so it cant be that I try to fill something that cannot be filled with color etc.. weird. Tuomas -- .---( t i g e r t @ g i m p . o r g )---. | some stuff at http://tigert.gimp.org/ | `---'
Re: Edit Fille behaviour change?
On 4 Feb, Kelly Lynn Martin wrote: >>What does Photoshop do? > What does that matter? Photoshop is the most used graphicstool out there and it makes sense to have a closer look on their behaviour especially in the UI sector. Anyway, even if books do now say that Fill fills with the background color, the obvious way would be using the foreground color. I'd prefer that, too, but we then also have to correct all plugins/scripts! -- Servus, Daniel
Re: Edit Fille behaviour change?
Kelly Lynn Martin said... | |>What does Photoshop do? | |What does that matter? We've changed the GUI to match PhotoShop more than once. Sometimes it was a good idea, but not always. I don't really care what PhotoShop does; I think this change, even though it seems logical to me, is about 1 year too late in the life cycle fo the GIMP, between the user base and the books. And the way it works now is reasonable. -Miles
Re: Edit Fille behaviour change?
On Fri, 4 Feb 2000 20:32:33 -0500, Federico Mena Quintero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >What does Photoshop do? What does that matter? Kelly
Re: Edit Fille behaviour change?
On Fri, 4 Feb 2000 19:07:37 -0500, Zach Beane - MINT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >>Fill (by default Ctrl-.) has filled using the background colour in >>the GIMP for as long as I can remember. I don't think it's a bug >[snip] >I agree. I have grown very accustomed to the existing behavior, and I >don't think it should be changed. >I know it hasn't been customary in the past, but I think such a >user-visible change should be discussed a little bit. I also concur and recommend a reversion. Kelly
Re: Edit Fille behaviour change?
Tom Rathborne wrote: > I just noticed this new CVS entry: > > Fri Feb 4 18:27:16 CET 2000 Stanislav Brabec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > * app/global_edit.c: edit_fill with foreground, not background. > > I don't think it's a bug, and > making this change will suddenly render all of the GIMP books > completely obsolete! Ok, so GIMP 1.2 will make the books obsolete > anyways... but changing such a basic core UI thing seems like a bad > idea to me. > > Revert, revert, ok! > Indeed, some of the 1.2 - revised books are well into pre-press and some are out in the market. These books suffer too. >From "Gimp - Essential Reference (Covers GIMP 1.2, GTK 1.2 and Script-Fu" by Alex Harford, published by New Riders (Page 32): "Clear and Fill are simple tools for working with selections and entire layers... ... The Fill ([Ctrl+.]) operation adds paint to the current selection. The selection is always the *background* color even if there are layers or an Alpha channel. Fill is therefore useless when working with a flat image without an Alpha channel because it has the same effect as Clear..." So in a small way, a GIMP reference has been rendered less accurate. The issue of whether or not this change is more sensible is not the point; the point is that the User Interface is special ground; there is a lot of external dependency on long-standing behaviour remaining constant. One should not change it without first posting some kind of proposal here - especially in this feature-freeze period where many people are working hard to get documentation synchronized with the Gimp. My two U.S. cents. Garry Osgood
Re: Edit Fille behaviour change?
> > Fill (by default Ctrl-.) has filled using the background colour in the > > GIMP for as long as I can remember. I don't think it's a bug > [snip] > > I agree. I have grown very accustomed to the existing behavior, and I don't > think it should be changed. > > I know it hasn't been customary in the past, but I think such a user-visible > change should be discussed a little bit. What does Photoshop do? Federico
Re: Edit Fille behaviour change?
On Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 06:59:57PM -0500, Tom Rathborne wrote: > I just noticed this new CVS entry: > > Fri Feb 4 18:27:16 CET 2000 Stanislav Brabec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > * app/global_edit.c: edit_fill with foreground, not background. > > Checked the code. Looks like 'Fill' now uses the foreground. So I > recompiled the GIMP. Indeed, the changes do what it says. > > Fill (by default Ctrl-.) has filled using the background colour in the > GIMP for as long as I can remember. I don't think it's a bug [snip] I agree. I have grown very accustomed to the existing behavior, and I don't think it should be changed. I know it hasn't been customary in the past, but I think such a user-visible change should be discussed a little bit. Zach -- Zachary Beane [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP mail welcome. http://www.xach.com/pgpkey.txt
Edit Fille behaviour change?
I just noticed this new CVS entry: Fri Feb 4 18:27:16 CET 2000 Stanislav Brabec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * app/global_edit.c: edit_fill with foreground, not background. Checked the code. Looks like 'Fill' now uses the foreground. So I recompiled the GIMP. Indeed, the changes do what it says. Fill (by default Ctrl-.) has filled using the background colour in the GIMP for as long as I can remember. I don't think it's a bug, and making this change will suddenly render all of the GIMP books completely obsolete! Ok, so GIMP 1.2 will make the books obsolete anyways... but changing such a basic core UI thing seems like a bad idea to me. Revert, revert, ok! Tom -- --Tom Rathborne[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.aceldama.com/~tomr/ --"I seem to be having tremendous difficulty with my life-style."
