[Digikam-users] Does no one ever want "custom order" in an album?

[Arnd Baecker]

On Tue, 2 Sep 2008, Dennis Meulensteen wrote:

> Op Tuesday 02 September 2008, schreef Chris G:
> > On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 12:13:05PM +0000, "Sveinn í Felli (IMAP)" wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Chris G wrote:
> > > > I want to select pictures randomly from various places (i.e. from
> > > > various different Digikam albums) and place them in a new album in a
> > > > specific order which has nothing to do with their dates, alphanumeric
> > > > file name or anything of that sort (no pun intended!).
> > >
> > > Does tagging the pictures not work your way ? In tag view
> > > only the pics porting a specific tag are shown, then ordered
> > > by either name/path/date/size/rating.
> >
> > So I tag some pictures with, say, "Long ride to Sudbourne" and then,
> > when I look at them they're not in the order I want, they're in
> > name/path/date/size/rating order.  I want the pictures to be in the
> > order *I* specify which may have no relation to anything 'logical'.
>
>
> Chris, I think what Arnd is trying to say is that this is not the way Digikam
> was designed. To do it your way (and mine too!)

Me too! (I really would like to have that feature as well ...;-)

> Digikam would have to be radically altered.

Hmm, not too radically, as far as I see things,
but it needs a couple of additions to the current way....

> I think this explains why nothing obvious has been done on
> this wish list item for all these years now.

Well, it is always a question of man-power, i.e.
the number of people contributing to an open-source project.
Most of the recent efforts concentrated to get
everything ported to KDE4/Qt 4
and make it run stable. This process is not yet finished.
However, the new database schema for 0.10 will make additions,
like the one under discussion,
much easier than with 0.9.x, so it is (together
with many many other improvements) a big step forward.

> Everything in Digikam now revolves around so-called "albums" which (very
> unfortunately IMHO) co-incide with file system folders. had the "albums" been
> virtual or at least more abstract, this would have not been a problem.
> Oh yeah, this post has got way too long: what I'm trying to say is I am afraid
> we can kiss our wish goodbye for now...

If "now" means "during the next couple of weeks, then yes
(unless you start coding ..), but I am optimistic that it will
get implemented at some point...

Best, Arnd