<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 8:25 PM, Cyrille Berger <span dir="ltr"><></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">On Monday 17 May 2010, Boudewijn Rempt wrote:<br>
> On Sunday 16 May 2010, <a href="mailto:LukasT.dev@gmail.com">LukasT.dev@gmail.com</a> wrote:<br>
> > What is switching to grayscale? Something like 16-bit depth? Or instead<br>
> > of QImage RGB use Grayscale?<br>
><br>
> No, right now if you edit a mask you do it using the alpha channel. Users<br>
> expect to use grayscale for that -- this is a refactor that has been<br>
> discussed before.<br>
</div>Did we took a decision, I think we sort of say that we would talk about it at<br>
the meeting... and did not. Because if we follow people expectation, we will<br>
just make a clone of photoshop ;p (I wonder what the gimp people are going to<br>
do in gegl on that aspect)<br></blockquote><div><br>Well, if we don't follow people expectations, we will definitely loose these people =)<br>I think this point is a must. Not depending on what PS or Gimp does. Grayscale masks are a common usecase, known by everyone (mostly), so we shouldn't break this rule.<br>
<br>Everything else should be optional features.<br><br></div></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Dmitry Kazakov<br>