Broken defaults

[Timothée Giet]

About the smudge brush backward compatibility I agree that's not much
important and you probably shouldn't waste time on it.
I like the idea to leave it on next release, just the time for users to
convert their presets from legacy to new smudge brush (I already did that
myself, but I think about all the users who don't use alpha version…)


2011/6/28 Silvio Heinrich <plassy at web.de>

> On 06/26/2011 11:21 PM, Lukast dev wrote:
> > I will, but did you tested and worked on the backward compatibility
> > with smudge presets 2.3? It's important as the brush was released as
> > "stable". If it would be "Experimental" category, it might be less
> strict.
> Sorry, No backward compatibility for the smudge brush.
> I mean it would of course be possible somehow but in my POV it
> wouldn't be worth the effort.
> We would have to make it possible that a preset for the smudge PaintOp
> would load for the Color Smudge PaintOp. This looks like a hack for me.
> I would just remove it. And even if the brush was marked as stable I
> don't think its this important to keep backward compatibility for this
> brush.
> It didn't work correctly, so I think it wasn't in use so much and the
> smudge brush only has 5 options where two of them don't have any effect
> (the "darken" and the "opacity" option).
> If you absolutely want the backward compatibility you need to take care
> of this
> by yourself :D.
>
> Alternatively I would suggest in the 2.4 release we let the users know
> that the smudge brush is deprecated and will be removed in the next
> release.
> Then they have time for a whole release cycle to convert their presets.
>
> But I really prefer to just remove it :P
> >> And I think the chalk brush can be removed.
> > Chalk brush was not released with 2.3,
> > it's compilation is turned off before the release.
> >
> >> With all the features in the pixel brush, the chalk brush
> >> is pretty useless :)
> > I use it as fast way to prototype new brushes,
> > so I want to have the code around and I want developers to fix
> compilation
> > when they change API and stuff --I want to have it compilable.
> Yes thats exactly what I meant.
> It's compilable. The whole calligra suite is so huge thats a real pain
> to do a fresh compile. Even with a fast computer and just krita enabled
> it takes painfully long. I think we should reduce where we can and don't
> carry
> a lot of dead corpses along our way :D.
> And it needs maintenance. Honestly It will become more and more a nightmare
> to maintain the brush and paintop stuff. With all the brushes and
> paintop options
> It's hard enough if someone needs to make some changes in the
> infrastructure.
> Thats why I would like to remove at least the stuff thats not in use.
>  I mean it's just my opinion. I won't start to cry if we keep it :D
> > It's nice example of simple brush -- just copy the dir and start
> > a new brush, that's my workflow.
> >
> > Btw would you please fix some other paintops as I can't change
> > the blending mode with them (e.g. filter, deform, experimental)
> Thats not a bug. The filter and the deform brush don't work with
> blending modes
> so this option gets disabled. But the experiment brush would work with
> other
> modes except "normal" I guess. You only have to add the
> KisCompositeOpOption
> in the settings widget. Or I can do it, if you want :).
> > I don't like the behaviour, that when I select blending mode
> > Multiply and then I change the brush, the blending mode is set to Normal.
> > I want to be able to continue with Multiply if I did not save the
> > blending mode in the
> > preset. Or I should always create presets with blending mode? What do
> > you think?
> > If it is better for me to create presets with blending mode, I will
> > try to adopt :) but is
> > it better workflow?
> Yes I think we should go for Davids proposed solution :)
> _______________________________________________
> kimageshop mailing list
> kimageshop at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kimageshop
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kimageshop/attachments/20110628/b3f7ff25/attachment-0001.htm