On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 18:39 +0200, Jaap A. Haitsma wrote: > 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.
Well, the commit message also says its changes the scaling strategy. > > > 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? Sure, can you do that? -- nautilus-list mailing list nautilus-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/nautilus-list
