Re: Generated files in version control (was: Re: Why is C90 enforced in KDE?)

[Thomas Lübking]

On Montag, 7. Dezember 2015 01:08:31 CEST, Nicolás Alvarez wrote:


It will look better to stick my app logo into the real-artist-designed
piece-of-paper-with-shadow than to draw an icon from scratch...


Afaiu, one should have asked the oxygen team to avoid this kind of patched 
icons.



I don't think that's the case. Surely the
preferred way to modify an icon is to edit the SVG and rasterize it
again.


Again: that's processing. The required file was the png (since svg icons were 
initially not even supported and even now the Qt svg renderer is completely not 
up to inkscape features extending vanilla svg)


If you used gimp, you should put your multilayer .xcf


**mt** - it's not simply "multilayer", that's just an intermediate result. 
The (hypothetical) icon was forged using several destructive processes to get the pixels 
colorful in the desired way - which are not documented anywhere.
It could even haven been done in the very same layer or layer merging was one 
of the required process steps.
A rastered image really completely rests in itself - no matter what tools were 
used to forge it. A vector editor is just a process detail; the same result 
could have been achieved in MS paint (with a lot of time ;-)

Cheers,
Thomas

Re: Generated files in version control (was: Re: Why is C90 enforced in KDE?)

[Nicolás Alvarez]

2015-12-06 18:46 GMT-03:00 Thomas Lübking :
> On Sonntag, 6. Dezember 2015 22:23:01 CEST, Nicolás Alvarez wrote:
>
>> I am aware that Nuno manually chose rendering engine and scaling
>> method for every individual Oxygen icon based on seeing which one gave
>> (subjectively) better results. That is not documented anywhere
>
> Seriously? I mean, are you saying the choices where not recorded anywhere?
> (To automize re-generation on a rule base)

As far as I know they weren't. I will be grateful if you can find the
record of those choices, so far I couldn't :)

>> If I want to make an Oxygen-style icon
>
> of vastly inferior quality ... :-P

It will look better to stick my app logo into the real-artist-designed
piece-of-paper-with-shadow than to draw an icon from scratch...

>> I could even bring licensing into the discussion.
>
>
> Afaiu you can't - png is the "source", because they were post-processed in
> addition?!?

Both Oxygen and Breeze icons are under the LGPL, so I *can* bring
licensing into discussion. If you think png is the real source, that's
a possible answer to my question, it doesn't mean my question is N/A
:)

If the Preferred Form of Modification is the PNGs, it means the best
way to modify an existing icon is to modify the PNG, so we shouldn't
need the SVG around at all. I don't think that's the case. Surely the
preferred way to modify an icon is to edit the SVG and rasterize it
again. In that case part of the Corresponding Source is missing: how
it was rasterized.

> Even if not: it doesn't matter whether you use inkscape or gimp or krita or
> illustrator or photoshop or MS paint to create a raster image (or whether
> you provide intermediate results as well) - otherwise things would get
> *really* complex, because the *entire* production process of the image would
> have to be documented to eg. allow recretation of a png drawn in gimp (Mask
> here, gradient there. Gaussian blur, 40% overlay. Flatten, displacement
> noise, yaddayaddayadda...)

If you used gimp, you should put your multilayer .xcf in version
control, although in that case I may concede that re-rendering it at
build time is a pain, and a .png should be committed too. But at least
it's easy to reproduce the exact same bitmap if needed.

-- 
Nicolás

Generated files in version control (was: Re: Why is C90 enforced in KDE?)

[Nicolás Alvarez]

2015-12-06 17:28 GMT-03:00 Ingo Klöcker :
> On Sunday 06 December 2015 13:34:51 Nicolás Alvarez wrote:
>> If it was up to me, there wouldn't even be .png icons in git version
>> control, they would be generated from their .svg files at compile
>> time.
>
> You do not seem to be aware of the fact that (AFAIK) the PNGs were hand-
> optimized by Nuno and others. I'm pretty sure that Nuno would personally
> hunt down each and everyone of us ignorant non-designers if we replaced
> the PNGs with auto-generated ones. :-)

I am aware that Nuno manually chose rendering engine and scaling
method for every individual Oxygen icon based on seeing which one gave
(subjectively) better results. That is not documented anywhere, and we
can't modify an icon and re-render it with the same quality unless we
ship Nuno's brain along with oxygen-icons.tar.bz2 (I don't think there
is any working implementation of RFC1437), because we don't know what
rendering engine, scaling method, and bitmap modifications were used.

If I want to make an Oxygen-style icon for my application's document
format, I can copy the .svg for an existing file format icon, put my
application logo, leave the paper, and... who knows how to produce the
magic .png from that. No documentation, no script.

I could even bring licensing into the discussion. What is the
"preferred form for modification" (in the GPL sense) of oxygen icons?
What is the Corresponding Source (in the GPL sense) of the .png files?

-- 
Nicolás

Re: Generated files in version control (was: Re: Why is C90 enforced in KDE?)

[Thomas Lübking]

On Sonntag, 6. Dezember 2015 22:23:01 CEST, Nicolás Alvarez wrote:


I am aware that Nuno manually chose rendering engine and scaling
method for every individual Oxygen icon based on seeing which one gave
(subjectively) better results. That is not documented anywhere


Seriously? I mean, are you saying the choices where not recorded anywhere? (To 
automize re-generation on a rule base)



I don't think there is any working implementation of RFC1437

Rumor has it that Dr. Ira Graves will have made some progress on this 
particular issue.


If I want to make an Oxygen-style icon


of vastly inferior quality ... :-P


for my application's document format, I can copy the .svg for an existing
file format icon, put my application logo, leave the paper,
and... who knows how to produce the magic .png from that. No documentation,
no script.


Is this a real world issue or is the solution being "breeze"?



I could even bring licensing into the discussion.


Afaiu you can't - png is the "source", because they were post-processed in 
addition?!?
Even if not: it doesn't matter whether you use inkscape or gimp or krita or 
illustrator or photoshop or MS paint to create a raster image (or whether you 
provide intermediate results as well) - otherwise things would get *really* 
complex, because the *entire* production process of the image would have to be 
documented to eg. allow recretation of a png drawn in gimp (Mask here, gradient 
there. Gaussian blur, 40% overlay. Flatten, displacement noise, 
yaddayaddayadda...)

IOW, iamges don't fit code licenses at all.

Cheers,
Thomas