Re: [Gimp-developer] Non-incremental painting

Your tone, sucks, as always. It sucks so much that I ask
you to leave us alone in the future. Please go away.


On Sat, 2012-01-28 at 15:33 +0100, Cedric Sodhi wrote:
> As I've been asked, I'll just quote what I already submitted to
> bugzilla, minus the typos:
> I see no use in non-icremental paiting. It appears to exist only because
> it was easier to implement than normal painting, which does not work
> properly, as I've filed in at least one other bug report.
> Not only should incremental paiting urgently be fixed, as described
> there, but non-incremental painting, or the option to choose between the
> two, should be removed as a whole.
> If anyone can think of a usecase where that non-intuitive, unpredictable
> painting mode is actually useful, please prove me wrong.
> Until then, I interpret the mere existance of that painting mode as an
> excuse to not admit one of the most serious flaws in gimp with regard to
> painting.
> To be blunt, as long as there is no way for a painter to properly
> anticipate the color in which he draws unless he draws in short,
> non-self-overlapping strokes (which, admittedly, is typical for
> water-color et al), gimp may be a powerful graphics-editor but remains
> nothing but a toy for painting (and all efforts related to painting such
> as providing well-designed presets remain futile).
> _______________________________________________
> gimp-developer-list mailing list
> gimp-developer-list gnome org

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]