https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=393109
Boudewijn Rempt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||b...@valdyas.org
Severity|normal
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=393109
--- Comment #6 from Philippe Lhoste ---
"the result will look different which is usually a bad thing"
Well, at least it would be a visible change, that can be undone.
The problem in my case was that the merge was not noticeable until it was too
late...
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=393109
--- Comment #5 from Philippe Lhoste ---
I understand Scott's objection, and I see we have different use cases.
Perhaps we can avoid a dialog by letting the user to choose what to do.
Either have two merge commands, one merging sub-layers, the other pres
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=393109
--- Comment #4 from Scott Petrovic ---
That would be one option to have. Merging is usually a destructive process, so
we need to be careful with showing messages when it is expected that some pixel
data will be lost.
What different situations would we
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=393109
--- Comment #3 from Dmitry Kazakov ---
Yep. Speaking truly I don't know what we should do about this bug.
Perhaps we could yse a compromise approach and ask user before the merge
something like:
"The merged layers have masks that will be lost during t
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=393109
Scott Petrovic changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |CONFIRMED
Ever confirmed|0
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=393109
Dmitry Kazakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dimul...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Dmitry
