Hi, in my haste to post a reply to an old thread on the subject (about sorting assets in GIMP), where I talked about organising assets in GIMP lists and dockables, I forgot to make a decent introduction and say a few important things.
I’ll try to explain the issues linked to the terms I used in the initial text and say that I’m not a software developer so I may commit some improprieties in the use of the terms mentioned here, so I’ll try to define the basis that led me to write these points in the initial text.
The basis for the series of points is located in an old thread https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gimp/-/issues/307#note_205600.
The discussion is dated to a large extent, but I wanted to take stock of the general aspects that I worked on with the idea of assets, brushes in particular, for the 2.10 release of GIMP.
At the time, I tried to organise the asset files in an order in which the brushes would appear in the dockables (list and grid) so as to create a sequence of use, e.g. .vbr parametric brushes, .gbr raster brushes and .gih brushes of different formats that had an order of presentation more linked to typology. In this sense, I tried to use the only possibility I had at the time, which was to introduce an alphanumeric append to the description and name of the file itself that could order the assets in the dockable (list, grid) that represented this idea.
This option was not accepted for use because we opted to keep the original names of the assets traditionally used since the earliest versions of GIMP.
I recently wrote in the thread where the discussion originated that I would be willing to resume work on organising GIMP assets more generally. These points are partly a summary of the discussion I had with João Bueno, adding up our ideas on the subject and understanding any links and difficulties.
Having explained this, I’m now going to define a few things so that we don’t misunderstand the initial terms used.
When I refer to the characteristics of the ‘Current System’, I simply mention how the Dockables (list, grid) can be organised and in this sense, they are presented in alphanumeric order.
When I refer to the ‘Ideal System’, I want to introduce some ideas that can help us give greater flexibility to the ordering of files in GIMP. These criteria and resources would not be available or visible in the Dockables lists but would be hidden in the asset itself. So in the instances where assets are created, such as brushes, dynamics, and presets, we would have additional fields that would make it possible to organise the assets differently from the current alphanumeric based on the name/description of the asset. The description that is inserted in the creation instance would remain unchanged, i.e. a name without the need to apply resources to place a particular item in a specific position, e.g. see the case of the ‘z Pepper’ brush.
In the ‘Ideal System’ I also mention the possibility of having a customised order, i.e. independent of the alphanumerical order, e.g.: a drag and drop to position the assets according to a preference of use different from that used by the alphanumerical name/description and the possible internal ‘order identifier’ created by the asset generation instance.
Another clarification: when I refer to the 'ID’ in the 'Ideal System’, it is simply an identifier hidden in the asset in order to sort it. In practice, it would be an additional field to be used to sort the asset.
At the time we discussed the subject, there was a lot of talk about asset licences (especially for brushes), so I did a lot of research to find the original authors of the brushes. In this sense, I think it would be appropriate to have at least one field to enter the author and any description at the author’s discretion (e.g.: ‘Pinco Palino, brush for special effects linked to textures’).
I don’t know if this is a complex problem for us to have an icon image, but it would help the community to produce brush sets that are easier to identify. For example, MyPaint’s creation instance allows us to create an image that represents the brush.
Following this logic, it’s clear that with each GIMP release, the curatorial staff will decide how to organise the assets and present them in the dockable lists. In other words, by default, these new systems will also have an Official Gimp aspect.
I apologise for the inaccuracies in the terms I used initially, but I think it’s clearer now that I’m trying to introduce a discussion about my ‘considerations’.