[digikam] [Bug 377587] The --database-directory argument should also be the location of the digikamrc file when used

[Gilles Caulier]

Simon,

I agree with Andrew. Point 2/ is more logic in this scénario.

Note : Why this story is not fully in bugzilla file ? Somebody has
responded directly by mail to the bugzilla notification and the file is not
updated as 377587 <https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=377587> comments...

I recommend to backport missing comments in bugzilla to not lost full
story.

Gilles



2017-03-24 1:00 GMT+01:00 Andrew Goodbody <ajg02 at elfringham.co.uk>:

> My vote is for 2) - always do what you're told and only what you're told.
> Give as much control to the user as possible, do not do unexpected things.
> Using a different config and/or creating a new one is very unexpected. I
> see no reason to assume the config would be colocated with the database,
> that's a very strange idea.
>
> Andrew
>
>
> On 23/03/17 11:48, Simon Frei wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the clarification, I get your scenario now. So it is a
>> trade-off between no side-effects and data safety. I still think that a
>> user using the command line options should be aware of the difference
>> between config and database and therefore be in charge of using
>> sensible/safe options. However planning for the DAU is also a good idea.
>>
>> I would like to hear what Gilles/Maik/Mario/... think about this.
>> Recap: The question is which of these options is favourable (arguments
>> in the comments above):
>> 1. Set config to the same directory as --database-directory. If no
>> config file exists there, create a new one/copy over the default one
>> (still respecting --config if given).
>> 2. Always use the default config unless --config is given, also with
>> --database-directory.
>>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/digikam-devel/attachments/20170324/0bc65ac8/attachment.html>