[ponorin]

> So they have a half-baked solution written in a random menu instead of just having it work properly by default?

i fail to see how an option for moving (visible by default), in a move tool, is "a half-baked solution (..) in a random menu." you don't move around text with a text tool, so where else should it be?

> Seriously though, the text clickable area should be a bounding box of each line.

gimp allows an arbitrary bounding box size for text layers. this enables, among other things, to conform text into a specific bounding box (i.e., no need to manually press enter to keep text inside a specific area). calculating the hit point with a bounding box instead of the content will invite even more confusion as people complain that text layer keeps moving when "i pressed the other thing."

also because people often praise krita for being the sane one, without apparently having used either of them for more than 5 minutes, krita has 3 different "move" tools and 2 different resize tools for text, each doing different things. probably the most confusing decision on krita is to make "mouse pointer tool" vector only. the program does tell you to use the move tool when you try it, but they could have just... make bitmaps movable with the "mouse pointer." nothing i can think of prohibits them from doing this.

also krita's move tool defaults to moving the selected layer without a visible option to change this behaviour, unlike gimp. so gimp is actually better even by your standard.

[James_K]

> so where else should it be?

Where it already is. But it's a bad solution for moving text. You should just be able to click on the text and move it.

> gimp allows an arbitrary bounding box size for text layers

That's why you would probably use the x-height of the text path for one long bounding box and then add a bounding box for each letter also. There is no need for the "on click" bounding box to be the same as the in-editor bounding box. You just need to allot a small area around the text that can be clicked to move it. It's not hard, or at least it shouldn't be.

> also because people often praise krita for being the sane one

I don't know what Krita is, but you seem overly invested in this argument if you are having it so frequently that you have to preëmptively admonish it.

[ponorin]

> you seem overly invested in this argument if you are having it so frequently that you have to preëmptively admonish it.

i dont engage in this discussion frequently myself, but have a look at the comments and you will see around half mentioning or comparing it to krita despite the news having nothing to do with it. this has been the norm of discussion regarding gimp, for better or worse.