On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 12:02, Alexander Larsson <al...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Sun, 2009-09-06 at 21:46 +0200, Jaap A. Haitsma wrote: >> Very small patch that doesn't show a frame around images with an alpha >> plane which makes the images look a lot better >> >> It's actually a modification of this patch which I committed a wile ago >> >> commit 2a94803b44010e3c47a9f7b94894fab8d6062abc >> Author: Jaap A. Haitsma <j...@haitsma.org> >> Date: Sat Jul 18 20:45:05 2009 +0200 >> >> Fix handling of small images/icons >> >> Small images with an alpha plane don't get a frame >> Use different scaling strategy for small images. Small images/icons >> won't get up scaled in default zoom view. They are shown in their actual >> Fixes bug #585186 >> >> >> Can I commit the attached patch? > > I don't think the patch does what this says, does it? > It only touched whether the image is framed or not, and it seems to > change that in another way than the above says.
Seems that I'm confusing people here. The attached patch makes sure that if an image has an alpha plane it will not put a frame. > However, I agree on the alpha handling. Frameing something that is > transparent just look weird. If you e.g. set a background other than > white the "inside" of the frame will look very weird, like putting a > transparency slide in a frame. > > We're past the hard code freeze though, so maybe its a bit late to > change this. The risk of a regression with this patch is 0. Can't we ask for a code freeze break? Jaap -- nautilus-list mailing list nautilus-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/nautilus-list
