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

[Mark <markg85 gmail com>]

On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Jaap A. Haitsma <jaap haitsma org> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 19:51, Alexander Larsson <alexl 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 <alexl 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 <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.
>>>
>>> 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)