gimp-developer-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx schrieb: > Hi, > > On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 09:34 +0300, Alexia Death wrote: > > >> > As soon as you copy them, they can be edited. >> Why couldn't that copy be made for the user on profile creation? >> > > Last time we discussed this, we decided against copying all resource > files to the user folder. But perhaps we need to reconsider this. There > are some questions that need to be solved before we can do this though: > > - How can the user resurrect brushes that she removed? > - How can we make sure that scripts don't break. > - Is copying really the best solution? > > >> > Having them read-only ensures that scripts can rely on them >> > being available in their original size and shape. >> If that is the intent why does the user need to see them at all? Cant >> they be hidden and called "api" brushes? That would have more than one >> benefit. >> > > That's a possible solution. But I would prefer if we added API that > allows scripts to set brush parameters. For backward compatibility, we > could add some code that checks for standard brush names and creates the > appropriate brush on the fly. > > > Sven > > > > > Hi I'm just a user of GIMP, not a developer. I usually only use the brush-editor and just open the same brush all the time and changing size and shape the way I need it. I hardly ever use the default-brushes. So here is an idea I thought of, when I read your discussion: Why not set the brush-editor as default, just like the way it is done with the ink-tool. Everybody that needs other brushes uses the great amount of brushes you can already download from the internet. I'd rather hope for a good archive of brushes on gimp.org. Just my unqualified 2cents Anke _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
