* Bernhard <darkta...@intervalsignals.org> [11-01-19 13:17]: > Until now I did not feel the need to change pp since the explanation given > seemed valid to me and I was happy with the results. > When I occasionally saw discussion about GUI improvement and module order I > always thought this is GUI only - which indeed would be a big improvement > for me. > Now everything seems to be different? > In my view there is a risk that the normal user deteriotes the result more > than it would help him - just a thought. > > -- > > regards > Bernhard > > https://www.bilddateien.de > > > > Julian Rickards schrieb am 01.11.19 um 16:11: > > In my opinion, re-ordering the modules in the favourites shouldn't be a > > problem with the pp order. In the same way that you may have written > > down, on paper, the modules you want to use, in the order you want to > > use them, re-ordering favourites in this way shouldn't be any different. > > However, I had recently proposed this as a feature request (but after > > the closure of the feature requests so I didn't expect it to be acted > > upon for 3.0) and it turns out that a couple of others had requested > > this before me (how long before me? I don't know). > > > > I don't want to make a big deal of this or start throwing flames back > > and forth, I just thought this might be useful. > > > > On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 11:03 AM David Vincent-Jones <david...@gmail.com > > <mailto:david...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > I think that I am relieved .... maybe ... hopefully I did not > > disturb the pp .... now I am confused ... I simply wanted to put > > the favorites in my logical processing order. > > > > David > > > > On 01.11.19 14:18, Patrick Shanahan wrote: > > > * Pascal Obry<pas...@obry.net> <mailto:pas...@obry.net> [11-01-19 > > > 08:01]: > > > > David, > > > > > > > > > Shurely .... changing the order of the modules located in the > > > > > 'favorites' tab does not change the individual modules position in > > > > > the pixel-pipeline? .... that would be unthinkable! > > > > Of course it does! Re-ordering the iop is not for fun, it really > > > > does > > > > change the pixel-pipe order. > > > then cryptomilk's reference should be corrected: > > > See > > > > > > https://www.darktable.org/usermanual/en/darkroom_concepts.html#pixelpipe > > > > > > as it indicated a static pixelpipe, and really allows unknowing users > > > ample opportunity to "shoot themselves in their collective feet". > > > > > > also once changed there doesn't appear any option ot restore the > > > original > > > order to the pixelpipe. ??? > > > > > > tks, > > > > > > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ > > darktable developer mailing list to unsubscribe send a mail to > > darktable-dev+unsubscr...@lists.darktable.org > > <mailto:darktable-dev%2bunsubscr...@lists.darktable.org> > > > > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ > > darktable developer mailing list to unsubscribe send a mail to > > darktable-dev+unsubscr...@lists.darktable.org > > ___________________________________________________________________________ > darktable developer mailing list > to unsubscribe send a mail to darktable-dev+unsubscr...@lists.darktable.org
fwiw, I believe the pp order should remain static and *only* the visual list should be changable. BUT, if it is determined that pp order may be altered, it should ONLY alterable within parameters where the order makes sense. -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA @ptilopteri http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member facebook/ptilopteri Photos: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/piwigo paka @ IRCnet freenode ___________________________________________________________________________ darktable developer mailing list to unsubscribe send a mail to darktable-dev+unsubscr...@lists.darktable.org
