Re: [PATCH] Don't show frames around images with an alpha plane

[Joshua Judson Rosen <rozzin geekspace com>]

Alexander Larsson <alexl redhat com> writes:
>
> 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 <jaap 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.
> 
> 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.

I've always found the `use the image as its own icon IFF it has a
transparent background' behaviour confusing: I can't tell if something
is an image and I'm seeing a thumbnail, or if I'm seeing an icon
that's been set for the file. If it's the latter case, then I have no
indication what the image *in* the file actually is until I open the
file; I may not even have an indication of *what kind of file* it is
until I try opening it, at which point I'll find that it's an
image-file.

I thought that the whole point of thumbnails was that I didn't have to
try opening a file to determine what it looks like (or even what kind
of file it is--whether it's even an image at all...).

Of course, the version of Nautilus that I've been running (in Debian
stable) is from before 2.21 and has this problem :(.

I didn't even know that the confusing inconsistency in
thumbnail-decoration had been fixed upstream!

I guess this is very late, but big "thank you" for fixing it!

-- 
Don't be afraid to ask (Lf.((Lx.xx) (Lr.f(rr)))).