[Digikam-devel] [Bug 103350] its too easy to save images
martinrehn at hotpop.com
Wed Nov 1 16:52:09 GMT 2006
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
------- Additional Comments From martinrehn hotpop com 2006-11-01 17:52 -------
To the last few comments, in particular the ones made by Jens, I would like to add that whatever system is decided upon it should
not break down when a) images or b) directories are moved by external tools
c) works well with other image management tools
For the purpose of b) storing local backups (as proposed in comment #33) would be a reasonable solution. For the purposes of a) and c) this solution would not be ideal, but the user would still have a good chance to avoid shooting himself in the foot.
What would be even better though is if the naming scheme was agreed upon by more than one application. Something like the Thumbnail Managing Standard http://jens.triq.net/thumbnail-spec/index.html
except that unlike what the standard prescribes for thumbnails, I would argue for storing the backups together with the originals.
This brings me back to comment #17: the F-Spot versioning scheme. It seems to satisfy the requirements of most people that have commented recently. But why not adopt the *exact same* scheme as F-Spot? The two programs would then interoperate perfectly and this could be the beginning of a new standard. Other programs could recognise the scheme as well so that file browsers could display only the current version of an image, with an indication that there are other versions available.
I'll follow up on this comment by asking on the f-spot list what they think.
More information about the Digikam-devel