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

[Robert Krawitz <rlk alum mit edu>]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 15:29:25 +0400, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
> 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.

OK, fine.  That's a fully persuasive argument for the *ability* to
separate export from save.  I understand that part of your case, and it
makes perfect sense.

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

What it is *not*, however, is an argument for making it impossible *not*
to separate export from save -- particularly for the special case where
you're saving back to the original file, and the slightly more general
case where you're saving back to a different filename in the same
format.

>>>> 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 as I noted before, the GIMP 2.8 behavior does not protect against
the kind of overconfidence where you think you're just not going to need
the layer information in the future.  You've made a conscious choice at
that point not to save it.

>> 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?

https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list/2012-November/msg00193.html

-- 
Robert Krawitz                                     <rlk alum mit edu>

MIT VI-3 1987 - Congratulations MIT Engineers men's hoops Final Four!
Tall Clubs International  --  http://www.tall.org/ or 1-888-IM-TALL-2
Member of the League for Programming Freedom  --  http://ProgFree.org
Project lead for Gutenprint   --    http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net

"Linux doesn't dictate how I work, I dictate how Linux works."
--Eric Crampton