gimp-developer-request@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU schrieb:

Hi,

On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 09:34 +0300, Alexia Death wrote:

As soon as you copy them, they can be edited.

Why couldn't that copy be made for the user on profile creation?

Last time we discussed this, we decided against copying all resource files to the user folder. But perhaps we need to reconsider this. There are some questions that need to be solved before we can do this though:

- How can the user resurrect brushes that she removed? - How can we make sure that scripts don't break. - Is copying really the best solution?

Having them read-only ensures that scripts can rely on them

> being available in their original size and shape. If that is the intent why does the user need to see them at all? Cant they be hidden and called "api" brushes? That would have more than one benefit.

That's a possible solution. But I would prefer if we added API that allows scripts to set brush parameters. For backward compatibility, we could add some code that checks for standard brush names and creates the appropriate brush on the fly.

Sven

Hi I'm just a user of GIMP, not a developer. I usually only use the brush-editor and just open the same brush all the time and changing size and shape the way I need it. I hardly ever use the default-brushes. So here is an idea I thought of, when I read your discussion:
Why not set the brush-editor as default, just like the way it is done with the ink-tool.
Everybody that needs other brushes uses the great amount of brushes you can already download from the internet. I'd rather hope for a good archive of brushes on gimp.org.
Just my unqualified 2cents

Anke