Someone will have to write a patch or eventually a fork to make this happen. The argument is dead.

The implementation and behaviors are somewhat inconsistent. You can "open" any format you want, you just can "save" any format you want. It has to be "export." Why not have the only way to get flat image files into GiMP "import"? Then it would be consistent. "Sorry, you can only open XCF files. You must use import."

People expect consistency and are comfortable with it. If you can open it, you should be able to save it. If you can import it, you should be able to export it.

And the "Save As" dialog showing files which shows other file format and all that. The argument was made about being able to see filenames. Really? That just doesn't make sense. If you are saving a file under "Save as" then you already know what you want to save it as and if you don't, open a file browser to figure it out. This is am image manipulation program, not a file browser. Let the UI indicate to the user what he can do instead of misleading the user as this behavior does. At the very least, set the default filter to "All GiMP file" rather than "All Images." People can still do the other thing, but if the UI is to convey what a user can do effectively, it should send a consistent message. "Intuitive" means a user can infer or guess what they can do without always consulting a manual or learning the hard way.

I just don't get why it can't be an optional behavior rather than "you've got no choice in the matter." After all, the one-window versus multiple windows is an option. Lots of people welcomed the change... I did too until I realized I liked multiple windows and turned that option back off. Why does it have to be locked in like that?

My wife uses Photoshop professionally. She doesn't get the reason for this behavior either. The following describes Photoshop's behavior.

http://help.adobe.com/en_US/photoshop/cs/using/WSfd1234e1c4b69f30ea53e41001031ab64-7783a.html

This reminds me of GNOME Shell and Unity... where someone pushed a new "great idea" as an exclusive thing, not as an option and it upset a larger community. GNOME/RedHat essentially took the same stance as being taken with GiMP today. "The decision is made." Now there are other projects helping to repair the damage and Fedora is now scrambling to support MATE in order to repair the damage and bad press. The majority of people asking "If GNOME3/GNOME Shell is the answer, what was the question?"

If some people want a new behavior, why not "test it first" by making it an option to let people see if they can get comfortable with it? Instead we got "by the way, in addition to all the features and improvements you wanted, we also took off the steering wheel and replaced it with some levers... you are now driving a bulldozer."

And yes, there will ALWAYS be people who won't be satisfied. There will always be people who cheer for change too. Let's have a poll?

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/ZH3LH9R

That took me about a minute to set up. It's a simple question: Which do you prefer?

On 08/13/2012 05:27 AM, maderios wrote:

Hi
This thread supplements " Gimp-2.8_Save and save as bad behavior " discussion
As I explained, I want to keep choice with save and save as, that's why I left gimp-2.8 and went back in Gimp-2.6

Comparison Gimp-2.8 Krita & Photoshop is interesting.

http://userbase.kde.org/Krita/Manual/ImportExport

http://multimedia.journalism.berkeley.edu/tutorials/photoshop/save/

Regards Maderios (Gimp lover)

On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Daniel Hauck wrote:

And the "Save As" dialog showing files which shows other file format and all that. The argument was made about being able to see filenames. Really?

This _is_ a bug, It is recognized as such, filed in the bug tracker (by me, personally), confirmed by the lead developer (in the bug tracker) and will hopefully be handled by the team soon.

https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=681699

Why you understand a comment about possible "usefulness" of this bug as an argument in favor of it, is beyond my comprehension.

I just don't get why it can't be an optional behavior rather than "you've got no choice in the matter."

As stated many times before, we do not want to support unsafe workflows. If you want to shoot yourself in the foot, you are welcome to use other applications.

And yes, there will ALWAYS be people who won't be satisfied. There will always be people who cheer for change too. Let's have a poll?

This is not going to change anything. But sure, have fun with it :)

Alexandre Prokoudine http://libregraphicsworld.org

On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 1:27 PM, maderios wrote:

Hi
This thread supplements " Gimp-2.8_Save and save as bad behavior " discussion
As I explained, I want to keep choice with save and save as, that's why I left gimp-2.8 and went back in Gimp-2.6

Comparison Gimp-2.8 Krita & Photoshop is interesting.

http://userbase.kde.org/Krita/Manual/ImportExport

Speaking of which, it just so happened that Calligra Suite 2.5 was released today, and so I fetched Krita 2.5 to see for myself again.

'File/Open' opens all supported files as new images. 'File/Import' does absolutely the same (sic!).

'File/Save' saves to any supported file typefile, lists all file types in the filter
'File/Save As' saves to any supported file type and switched to the newly created file
'File/Export' saves to any supported file type under a different name and sticks to the current file name (usually it is called Save Copy As)

Saving multilayered data to JPG doesn't warn about potential lost data. Nor closing that file does.

Knowing Krita developers I would assume they did all of this for a reason. However this is certainly not how I want my image editor to work, so I 'm glad we can all find editors that work the way each of us likes.

Alexandre Prokoudine http://libregraphicsworld.org