Re: Icon displayed wrong

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: James Cloos <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden
> Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 03:49:36 -0400
> 
> Eli> Can you explain why?
> 
> The images directory has both B/W and Colour versions of each icon.  The
> Colour versions are all xpm (X pixmap) files, and the B/W are all pbm
> (Portable Bitmap) files.  All except cancel.pbm which has (had, on
> trunk, now that Glenn updated it) the bitmap extension but is (was) a
> grayscale file using only colours 0 and 255.
> 
> Converting it simply makes it match all of the other icons, and it
> obviously was intended to be a P4 pbm file when it was first commited;
> whoever saved it from Gimp just "typo"ed the SaveAs on that one file.

In other words, you are saying it should be converted for consistency.

Note that there are a couple of other *.pbm files in etc/images that
on the branch are not PBM files.  For example, copy.pbm is a PPM
file.  Are we sure they all are due to typo-style mistakes?

> If there is any chance of .990 getting simply renamed as 22.1

There's exactly 0% chance that this will happen, because some source
files need to be modified to change the version number, and the
ChangeLog files need to be marked with the release entry.

> then I
> agree with Glenn's decision not to also make then change on the release
> branch.  But it should then get done there for 22.2.

I actually agree with Glenn's decision not to touch the release
branch; see my other mail in this thread where I report that the
converted image file behaves differently from the original PGM one.
It is these unintended consequences that we should consider when we
discuss changes for non-critical problems.