Re: [Gimp-developer] Save/export, option to go back to old behaviour

[Alexandre Prokoudine <alexandre prokoudine gmail com>]

On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Alberto Mardegan wrote:

>> There must be a reason why one group of people keeps linking to
>> http://gui.gimp.org/index.php/Save_%2B_export_specification and
>> http://gui.gimp.org/index.php/Vision_briefing, and another group of
>> people carefully ignores these links.
>
> I swear I read them and I think that I understood the rationale. But
> that's note the same thing as saying that I understand what was wrong
> with the save functionality in 2.6 (because I still don't).

It's simple.

Primary workflow = creating original art from scratch, complex editing
where preserving extras is a must. That's the workflow when you work
iteratively. This workflow makes it easy to share your work in a
delivery file format (e.g. exporting to a public Dropbox folder),
while refining the actual project file. 2.6 didn't make it easy.

Secondary workflow = overwriting original files. 2.6 made it easier,
but it's not the primary workflow, and there are well-known
workarounds.

>>> Is it actually possible for a user to lose the layers when saving to
>>> JPEG with gimp 2.6? The JPEG plugin asks to flatten the image, at which
>>> points the users would cancel the process if he really cares about them.
>>
>> You seem to be under impression that people actually read text in prompts :)
>
> Maybe many don't, but at least they can't blame you for that, can they? :-)
> I mean, you can get burnt by this issue once, indeed.

Not once, not even by a long shot. People tend to relax and become
overly confident.

> and in any case you can't blame the gimp
> developers if you didn't read a questions which appeared while saving
> your extremely important file. :-)

Our job is not to point fingers and accuse. Our job is to create
software for a certain target group of users described above.

>>> Or do you have reports when this did not occur for some reasons?
>>
>> https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list/2012-November/msg00190.html
>
> It seems that it happened with 2.8

Does it? What makes you think so?

Alexandre Prokoudine
http://libregraphicsworld.org