After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 169799 - Path Tool improvements
Path Tool improvements
Status: RESOLVED OBSOLETE
Product: GIMP
Classification: Other
Component: Tools
2.2.x
Other All
: Normal enhancement
: ---
Assigned To: GIMP Bugs
GIMP Bugs
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2005-03-10 04:41 UTC by Jeremy Apthorp
Modified: 2018-05-24 11:28 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---



Description Jeremy Apthorp 2005-03-10 04:41:48 UTC
For this tool to be used with maximum ease, paths should be rendered on the fly,
and they should have individual options for width, color, etc. (basically,
everything that's in the Stroke Path dialog). The path layers should be moved to
the normal layers dialog. I believe these ideas have already been lanuched.

I would like the ability to:
* Join two paths
* Split selected points (or selected subpath, if it's easier) into a new path
* Select points by dragging a box around them
* Select a whole sub-path

Other information:
Comment 1 Sven Neumann 2005-03-10 11:02:31 UTC
That's not a very helpful bug report because it deals with a number of different
and unrelated changes. Individual bug reports should have been opened for these.
But let's just ignore the top paragraph (which is already handled in bug #68915).
Comment 2 Jeremy Apthorp 2005-03-10 11:23:07 UTC
Sorry, I thought I'd lump a bunch of improvements to the same tool in one bug.

And yeah, the first paragraph is basically "this would have to be implemented
first".
Comment 3 weskaggs 2005-03-10 16:10:13 UTC
Lumped suggestions are hard to deal with because Bugzilla doesn't give any
simple way to mark progress on them:  a bug report is either RESOLVED or
not-RESOLVED.  Even after (say) four of the six things have been done, a
developer still has to read the whole bug report and all the comments in order
to understand the current state -- it gets too complicated.

By the way, the first part doesn't have to be implemented first, although it
might turn out to be.  The second part requires much less new machinery.
Comment 4 Jeremy Apthorp 2005-03-10 19:58:38 UTC
Ah, fair enough. Should I commit a new bug for each of those things?

And, neat! The sooner things can be implemented, the better. :)
Comment 5 weskaggs 2005-03-11 00:03:36 UTC
No, it's okay, I was just explaining.

Also, we are a volunteer project, with only a few people actively writing code,
and there are loads of important things waiting to be implemented.  So, if you
want things done soon, let your programmer friends know that we need more
programmers.
Comment 6 Jeremy Apthorp 2005-03-11 05:54:57 UTC
Thanks, my first bug commit ever, so.

If I had a means by which to fund someone to do things like that, and some money
to fund them with, I would. As it is, I will spread the word :)
Comment 7 GNOME Infrastructure Team 2018-05-24 11:28:32 UTC
-- GitLab Migration Automatic Message --

This bug has been migrated to GNOME's GitLab instance and has been closed from further activity.

You can subscribe and participate further through the new bug through this link to our GitLab instance: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gimp/issues/137.