[Digikam-devel] gad nabbit 0.10.0 segfaults

Arnd Baecker arnd.baecker at web.de
Fri Jan 4 09:37:50 GMT 2008

On Thu, 3 Jan 2008, Jasper Mackenzie wrote:

> > Just to be sure: digikam 0.10 is not yet meant
> > to be used in a production system, just for testing
>   I have to use 0.10.0 as my 300G image collection from this year (phew!
> all shooting no sorting... nice) is on my file server.
> > (and maybe even contributing ;-).
>    I hope I can contribute Ideas and experience 8~)
> > The stable branch is 0.9.3.
> > But most likely I am telling you nothing new ... ;-)
> > Best, Arnd
>   Does discussion of 0.10.0 need to be in digikam-users or here....

Well, I think that discussion of 0.10.0 should
better be done here...

> I am finding that with so many folders and files things are getting
> unworkably slow.

There might be some issues with 0.10.0,
where the focus most likely is not on performance at this point
(I don't use 0.10.0 yet...)

>   Is it possible (or forseable) that folders within an album, or who albums
> if that was required could be set to not be watched with inotify (or
> whatever)?

Is it clear that this is causing the slow-down?
(Before changing anything/or thinking about changing something,
the real cause of problems has to be identified ...)

>     I mostly dump my images in  folders by date, I only intend to edit
> metadata, and to work on images on the local drive. So only the directory
> of the year... 2008 now, needs to be watched for changes.

This procedure makes sense, but I am not sure whether
this "watching the directories" is causing the problems or not ...

>   I am hoping that all this will give me virtual albums based on tags...
> ooooh all that meta goodness. what a great dichotomy change from
> heirachical structures to ideas based sorting!
>   This is a whish, do I post this as a bug somewhere?

I think it is a bit too early file bugs specific to 0.10, but ...

>      With all my files on a file server, I would love to have my albums
> indexed and thumbnailed, such that the thumbnails could be viewed even
> when the network drive is not attached,

This might be possible, because the thumbnails are stored
in ~/.thumbnails

> with the changes to metadata being
> synced to exif later on.

This sounds to me like:
If yes, you could add your comments there.

Best, Arnd

More information about the Digikam-devel mailing list