I have written a script that provides two new commands:

Group Linked Layers - move linked layers into a new containing group.

Ungroup Layer(s) - move a layer or layers out of its containing group.

http://chiselapp.com/user/saulgoode/rep ... ked-layers

I would appreciate feedback and bug reports.

Work fine Linux, Gimp 2.8.14.
"Group Linked Layers" works as expected, Layer group position in stack depends on layer selected at run-time.
"Ungroup Layer(s)" works as expected, Layer group must be selected.
The brackets difference in the menu name might cause confusion. I have another item in Stack menu that separates the two, perhaps prepend name with sg?

What is the difference from AnimStack (direct link) version?
AnimStack: Layer | Group | Copy Linked Layers, Pack Linked Layers, Unpack Layer Group.

Agreed. I have renamed the command to "Ungroup Layer". Note that the active layer doesn't have to be a layer group; if the active layer is a regular layer, it gets moved out of its containing group.


Well, AnimStack comes with quite a bit of baggage specific to editing animations. If you have it installed then there is not much need for my script; nonetheless installing dozens of commands just to get two that are useful in the general case seems a bit overkill.


Thank you for your feedback.

These are useful operations. Maybe I'll use layer groups more now.

The "Group linked layers" operation seems to work fine.

Regarding the "Ungroup layer(s)" option, if I select a single layer within a group, it ungroups that layer only. If I select the layer group, it ungroups all layers within the selected group (basically tosses that group).

Might it be handy to have an "Ungroup linked layers" option, as well?

Thanks for the feedback. My thinking was that one could use a combination of the two commands to readily accomplish this. That is, use Group Linked Layers to create a group of the linked layers outside their current one, then use Ungroup Layer on the fundament* of that group to splice them into position. It would be trivial to provide this as a separate command but I'm personally of the opinion that one additional step after running a script does not generally justify a separate command. I will consider your proposal, though.

* I use the term "fundament" to refer to the layer group pseudo-layer (i.e., the "folder" containing the layers that comprise the group). I think there needs to be a distinction between the "group" (all of the layers) and this pseudo-layer, at least with regard to discussion of them. Perhaps there is a better term, though.

How about if you select an unlinked layer within a group, the operation ungrouped that layer only but If the selected layer was linked, it would ungroup linked layers?

I have updated the script so that Group Linked Layers will position the newly created group above the active layer even in the case where the active layer is a fundament (previously such a situation would create the new group within the fundament's group, at its top).


I have somewhat mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, it would behave intuitively (and eliminate a step) for the case where all of the linked layers are direct children of the containing group -- and admittedly there really isn't much utility offered by "ungrouping" a single, regular layer (which could just as easily be moved out of the group from within the Layers dialog).

But then what should happen if one or more grandchildren are linked? Should they be ignored? Should they be "promoted" to direct children (even if they are great-grandchildren)? Should they each be promoted only one level such that a great-grandchild becomes a grandchild, a grandchild becomes a child, etc? While arguments could be made for any one of these three behaviors being a logical choice, I'm not sure which would be most useful and intuitive. I think it may be preferable to not present the user with the possibility of encountering such a scenario occurring (by only ungrouping a single layer).

I think I will leave the behavior as it is for now, until I gain some more experience and feedback on how layer groups are being used. Like you, I haven't used them very much (really only once*) and will probably revisit things later. Also, I think this script would just be an interim solution which won't be needed once GIMP developers add the ability to have multiple active layers (though that is probably a couple year's off).

* Edit: I apparently didn't upload the version that split the knobs and such into separate layer groups

Is there a simple tutorial/exercise to learn how to use layer groups? I really need to learn that.

I understand your concerns and your position. When gathering specs as the beginning of the development life cycle, it's good to have as much info & feedback as possible.

To further advocate for my suggestion, it seems it would be intuitive to have the following two commands: Group Linked & Ungrouped Linked. "Group linked" would group all linked layers within the group and make them a child of that group. The reverse would be done when using "Ungroup Linked". It would ungroup all the linked layers within the group and make them a parent of that group. Linked layers outside of the group containing the selected layer would not be affected. If a layer that is grouped or ungrouped contains parents or children, those parents/children would simply follow the layer that is grouped or ungrouped.

I'm just tossing this out as something to consider, as you move forward.

That's FUD. The only "baggage specific to editing animations" in Animstack is one single menu item under Filters/Animation, and it's useful for non-animation purposes as well. It's also a single .scm file, so it needs zero effort to be installed nor does it bloat GIMP in any way.