On Wed, 2006-05-24 at 22:15 +0200, Christian Neumair wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 11.05.2006, 16:50 +0200 schrieb Alexander Larsson:
> > On Sun, 2006-04-30 at 13:13 +0200, Christian Neumair wrote:
> > > > The framing logic isn't the same as before. There are certain images
> > > > that get a frame now that didn't before and vice versa. Totem thumbnails
> > > > at low zoom levels didn't get one before but do now. Some images in
> > > > ~/backgrounds don't get a frame anymore at low zoom now, but did before.
> > > > I think the size comparison in
> > > >
> > > > > +if ((is_thumbnail || size > NAUTILUS_ICON_SIZE_THUMBNAIL) && !
> > > > > gdk_pixbuf_get_has_alpha (pixbuf)) {
> > > >
> > > > doesn't do the same as it did before because the pixmap has already been
> > > > scaled at that point now.
> > >
> > > To be honest I don't understand why we're adding frames to pixbufs that
> > > don't come from ~/.thumbnails at all.
> >
> > Why should how we implement thumbnailing of image files affect how they
> > are shown? That is just an implementation detail. The difference between
> > thumbnail-as-itself and real thumbnail very non-obvious to users.
>
> I see. I added code to correctly compare the original image size instead
> of the pixbuf size against NAUTILUS_ICON_SIZE_THUMBNAIL.
Looks good to me. The only thing i noticed was:
+ int size = MAX (width, height);
...
+ args->base_size = MAX (width, height);
You could re-use size here instead of recalculating it.
Please commit (to HEAD only).
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Alexander Larsson Red Hat, Inc
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
He's an unconventional one-eyed cop looking for 'the Big One.' She's a blind
tempestuous detective on her way to prison for a murder she didn't commit.
They fight crime!
--
nautilus-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/nautilus-list
