On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 9:50 PM, Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Le 16 sept. 2009 à 15:11, Alexander Larsson a écrit : > >> >> On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 15:02 +0200, Mark wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Alexander Larsson <al...@redhat.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 14:18 +0200, Mark wrote: >>>> >>>> Another alternative would be to frame the transparent icons after >>>> overlaying them on some background, but that would loose some of the >>>> information availible about the file (that its transparent), so this >>>> isn't really a great idea either. >>> >>> Oke, if you say so. I still don't agree on it but i guess my voice is >>> worth nothing since i'm not a nautilus dev. >>> But i hope for you and Jaap that people don't get confused by this >>> patch. But i bet that if someone out there is using nautilus 2.28 >>> (assuming it lands in there) when it's released and that someone has >>> both jpeg and png files in the same folder with a few that have >>> transparency you will start seeing bug reports about that. >> >> I'm pretty sure some people will be confused by it, but i'm also sure >> that some people would be confused if we took the transparent image and >> made it non-transparent. There is not always a perfect solution for >> everyone. >> >>> Just look at this image to see what they might report: >>> http://img2.imagedash.com/2WLn.png i certainly would report that if i >>> didn't know about this patch. >> >> I don't think that looks to bad really. >> This: http://img2.imagedash.com/Pk2o.png looks far weirder. > > > Did anybody look at this historical bug report I gave ? Nautilus has a > history of changing this feature every once in a while and it disturbs users > either way. > > What about transparent images, well I do have transparent images that have > content on the border and not having frames on it is just as bad as having > frames on images where there is no content on the border. Can we please just > stop switching this behavior on and off or make it definitively togglable in > gconf or something like this ? > > -- > Gilles Dartiguelongue > gilles.dartiguelon...@esiee.org
Oh cool, so the current stable behavior is the result of a bugfix of https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=338632 which is not about to get in nautilus again to start the cycle all over again.. So just for clarity's sake. Nautilus 2.20 -- No frames on transparent images Nautilus 2.22 -- Frames on transparent images Nautilus 2.28 -- <if accepted> No frames on transparent images Nautilus 2.?? -- Someone makes a bug report resulting in frames getting back on the transparent images I see a pattern ^_^ So to say it boldly. Stop fucking around! make a gconf value or don't apply this patch. applying it will make bug 338632 appear all over again. Btw. Gnome 2.22 isn't THAT long ago so why didn't someone else thought of this before? surely the one that patched in the 2.22 to 2.24 cycle is still around..? -- nautilus-list mailing list nautilus-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/nautilus-list
