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 hide resources - it's rather that a subset of seamingly infinite resources gets pulled into the user's workspace. The mechanism to proliferate updated resources would be the same as searching for new resources -- initiated by the user. A hint could be shown that a certain new brush is _intended_ to replace an old one, but the replacement should not be done automagically. After all, these are actually two different resource items. Martin Nordholts schrieb: > I would like to add that if the ongoing brush dynamics and tool options > redesign discussions end with a solution where editing of actual brush > files is not necessary, then this whole discussion is obsolete. But as > long as that file writability matters for resources, then what we have > now is broken and needs to be fixed somehow. if tweaked resources are to be shared, too, then it doesn't make a difference other than that potentially two files have to be shared in case adjustments are separated from the brush data. hope i'm not too far off ;) peter _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
