Le vendredi 11 septembre 2009 à 18:46 +0200, Jaap A. Haitsma a écrit :
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 14:13, Mark <mark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Oh, just noticed your confusing me. you have actually patches for both 
> > issues.
> 
> Sorry for confusing you I thought my email was pretty clear.
> The first patch for small images was already committed.
> 
> > In that case. i agree on the patch that fixes the the small images
> > getting scaled but i don't agree on no frame for images with alpha.
> > Just imagine a image with just one transparent pixel somewhere.. would
> > that suddenly be without a frame? would look odd i think. Specially in
> > a big folder with jpeg and png images.
> 
> The patch just checks if there is an alpha plane. JPEG images don't
> have an alpha plane so they will get framed. With PNGs an alpha plane
> is an option.  The use case you are referring to can be constructed
> but it seems unlikely to happen in practice. The use case that you
> have some larger sized PNGs with an alpha plane that get incorrectly
> framed occurs much more often.

Having some thumbnails with frames and some other not is just confusing
for users:

http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=338632

-- 
Gilles Dartiguelongue <gilles.dartiguelon...@esiee.org>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée

-- 
nautilus-list mailing list
nautilus-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/nautilus-list

Reply via email to