[Digikam-users] Folders, albums and collections

Agustin Lobo alobolistas at gmail.com
Fri Jun 19 09:30:47 BST 2015

First, this is a design suggestion, yes. And designing according to
user's experiences is the most fundamental advantage
for developers of OSS. Your view of "you like it, you use it; you
don't like it, use something else" is, besides being unnecessarily
rude ,  totally opposed to OSS philosophy.
Second, I was obviously referring to file management. Obviously, the
editing tasks must change files. But this would rarely be
an unintended action (although Digikam has the means of protecting the
user of eventual errors in this case), while
deleting an Album while thinking  you are deleting just something
internal to Digikam can easily happen.

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Remco Viƫtor <remco.vietor at wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> On Friday 19 June 2015 09:41:30 Agustin Lobo wrote:
>> Very dangerous. I suggest that, in the future, all Albums be virtual.
>> That is, initially you get Albums matching folders, but removing
>> Albums should not
>> imply removing folders. Removing folders should be done by using the OS.
> Digikam
>> should deal with managing its database only.
>> Note that for most users (specially novice users) having Albums and
>> Virtual Albums can be confusing,
>> and they could easily think that they are removing a virtual Album
>> while they are removing a folder... with its pictures.
> Isn't that a design decision? And digikam went one way, you prefer
> another... Perhaps Darktable would be more to your taste.
> And also, if Digikam 'deal[s] with managing its database only', how are you
> going to cull the images that are blurred, or just not good enough to keep?
> Remco
> _______________________________________________
> Digikam-users mailing list
> Digikam-users at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

More information about the Digikam-users mailing list