<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"></head><body><div>Makes sense to me now. Thank you Chris and Simon for the explanations.</div><div><br></div><div id="composer_signature"><div style="font-size:85%;color:#575757" dir="auto">Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.</div></div><div><br></div><div style="font-size:100%;color:#000000"></div><div style="font-size:100%;color:#000000"><!-- originalMessage --><div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> </div><div>Date: 2017-01-14 8:51 AM (GMT-07:00) </div><div>To: digikam-users@kde.org </div><div>Subject: Re: digikam default options </div><div><br></div></div>On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 07:14:54AM -0700, Andrey Goreev wrote:<br>> Wanted to add to my message below.<br>> <br>> I think adding any info to metadata should not be considered as "file<br>> modifying". Why would you add any metadata? To get your pictures<br>> organized, right? So why would mess with timestamps then? Original<br>> timestamps should be preserved.<br>> <br>The *files* timestamp (there are three actually) is operating system<br>information and is an indicator to the operating system and is used by<br>other programs and the OS to manage the file.<br><br>If I modify a file by changing the metadata I *do* want to change the<br>timestamp because this tells the operatiny system (and other software)<br>that the file has been modified and should, for example, be backed up.<br>Quite a lot of backup programs in particular rely on the file<br>timestamps to decide whether a file should be backed up.<br><br>The times in the metadata are for use by such as Digikam.<br><br>-- <br>Chris Green<br></body></html>