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>
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
