From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Juri Linkov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: thumbs.el and transparency Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 03:29:33 +0200 Organization: JURTA Message-ID: <87bqxgynfn.fsf@jurta.org> References: <17366.53124.274532.548329@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <878xspwnjm.fsf@jurta.org> <87slqvfobk.fsf@jurta.org> <87d5hy43b6.fsf@jurta.org> <87u0b8lwhw.fsf@jurta.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1139539147 16315 80.91.229.2 (10 Feb 2006 02:39:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 02:39:07 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Feb 10 03:39:06 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F7OBY-00029w-JN for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 10 Feb 2006 03:39:00 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F7OBY-0000xp-0Z for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 21:39:00 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1F7O7s-0008DM-Tb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 21:35:13 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1F7O7r-0008D9-Ew for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 21:35:12 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F7O7r-0008D6-4p for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 21:35:11 -0500 Original-Received: from [194.126.101.111] (helo=mail.neti.ee) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1F7OBW-000065-R2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 09 Feb 2006 21:38:59 -0500 Original-Received: from mail.neti.ee (80-235-37-98-dsl.mus.estpak.ee [80.235.37.98]) by Relayhost1.neti.ee (Postfix) with ESMTP id C36FB1C79; Fri, 10 Feb 2006 04:35:09 +0200 (EET) Original-To: Mathias Dahl In-Reply-To: (Mathias Dahl's message of "Thu, 09 Feb 2006 23:46:45 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.2.1 (20041222) (Debian) at neti.ee X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:50302 Archived-At: > I don't understand the reasoning behind this, or I have a completely > different view point. You say it is hard to contribute to two > thumbnail packages, to which I agree with completely. But you suggest > moving things from tumme to thumbs to make them more different. Still > some things would need to exist in both. Wouldn't the best solution be > to have *one* thumbnail package that handle both basic and advanced > things? I thought about sharing common customizable options like `thumbs-per-line' and `tumme-thumbs-per-row', `thumbs-relief' and `tumme-thumb-relief', `thumbs-conversion-program' and `tumme-cmd-create-thumbnail-program', etc. by leaving these options in thumbs.el and allowing tumme.el to use them, so users could customize both packages with the same options. I based my reasoning on an opinion expressed on this thread that both packages should exist in Emacs. But actually I have no opinion about this. Given the choice between a simple thumbnail package and more advanced one, I personally would definitely select the latter. > In my opinion, tumme is there now and there are very few things missing > in it, that thumbs has. I think instead of adding all features of thumbs.el to tumme.el it is more urgent to make tumme.el more usable, so it would have more than one user ;-) -- Juri Linkov http://www.jurta.org/emacs/