On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Jaap A. Haitsma <j...@haitsma.org> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 19:51, Alexander Larsson <al...@redhat.com> wrote: >> 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. > > That's where I confused everybody I guess. That commit is already in > GNOME git since the 18th of July > >> >>> >>> > 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? >> > Will do > > Jaap > -- > nautilus-list mailing list > nautilus-list@gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/nautilus-list >
So, the next nautilus version is going to have no decorations on images with transparency in them..? (assuming you get the freeze break and commit this patch).. I hope you do realize that i don't agree with it and that it will cause bug reports like: "some thumbnails miss a frame"... WHY can't you just count the number of images with transparency in a folder and ONLY leave the frame out when all images in a folder have transparency? kinda like in my screenshots provided earlier. (this one: http://img2.imagedash.com/hrvF.png) -- nautilus-list mailing list nautilus-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/nautilus-list