On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 22:04, Mark <mark...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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..?
The change in 2.22 was a regression of the change to gio/gvfs. So that was not intentional, but nobody came around to fix it. Jaap -- nautilus-list mailing list nautilus-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/nautilus-list
