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

["Jaap A. Haitsma" <jaap haitsma org>]

On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 22:04, Mark <markg85 gmail com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 9:50 PM, Gilles Dartiguelongue <evasdk 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 <alexl 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 dartiguelongue 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