• Rebased to master
• Reverted uneeded changes

Changes based on review by Hans Goudey.

• Compositing workspace:

• Fix order of apply and all strings valid check

Surprisingly, thumbnails of this size that capture the entire UI could be used like this...

Another example that I don't like quite as much is to ED_screen_state_toggle before and after capture of the largest editor:

• Change order of assert and cast

• dividing the line width by U.pixelsize as suggested
• change use of fontid for function I missed

Thanks, will be great to finally have this committed.

@Hans Goudey (HooglyBoogly) - Submitting a new patch sounds good.

Submitting a new patch sounds good.

Getting there! I tested it out this time and it works well.

In D9180#265527, @Harley Acheson (harley) wrote:

@Hans Goudey (HooglyBoogly) - if you're still interested in working on this, do you want to update the patch with these changes? Then I think the visual side is ready, unless I'm missing something.

Yes, I think there is clear consensus here and a solution that works IF we take lasso out of the equation.

Should I commandeer this patch or submit just submit my own and reference this one? The former seems a bit rude and the latter might be a nice reset.

@Hans Goudey (HooglyBoogly) - if you're still interested in working on this, do you want to update the patch with these changes? Then I think the visual side is ready, unless I'm missing something.

I agree that separating lasso to a separate patch makes sense.

Updated to incorporate all the changes requested by @Julian Eisel (Severin)

@Aaron Carlisle (Blendify) I made requested changes, only subpanel change wasn't done, there are already many subpanels inside each one, also they should be reorderable, it is a key feature for the update

Seems good if the remaining points from Hans are addressed.

• Some of the tool-settings apply to all paint modes, some not. So I think it makes sense to qualify that in the RNA UI name. You could also argue that the UI scripts can be expected to make a certain context clear (only show the buttons in the appropriate modes) or add a custom label if clarification is needed. But I don't see that this change being a real improvement. Well of course it shouldn't say "WPaint" but "Weight Paint"
• TBH I kind of like that it says that the textures are procedural. Not all of them are (image textures are not) and it's something new for the user to learn.

Could you separate the shading changes? The orientation changes seem fine, let's get that in. The shading changes I'm more unsure about, something to discuss further.

Would be good to do this change. Of course it's an issue if this has an affect on the usages of UI_GetThemeColorBlendShade4fv(). If that is not the case (ie if the callers don't use the alpha) or if we can correct the cases, this is fine. But the callers need to be checked.

I think this is fine. It's somewhere in-between a fix and a muscle memory breaking change. But the current design already challenges muscle memory. Doesn't seem like something people would complain about, if there are reasonable complaints, we can consider reverting it for the release and correcting this for 3.0.

I noticed I said something wrong in my comment above. In the first sentence it should say "this should probably move the objects to a new collection". That's the consensus from the UI module as far as I remember, and the rest of my comment tries to justify that. So yes, I agree with Brecht's points.

Okay, I'll work on making this an operator option, at least for the operator controlled by the ctrl-G .

To be honest, I would draw all points using