[Digikam-users] Folders, albums and collections

Veaceslav Munteanu veaceslav.munteanu90 at gmail.com
Fri Jun 19 09:48:19 BST 2015


as a developer of digiKam let me clarify some things and and explain
why this idea is not feasible.

digiKam is build around the same model as filesystem. Which means,
basic functionalities which can be done in file manager can be also
done in digiKam.Now if you don't like the filesystem organization, you
go with advanced features such as tagging and metadata.

It might look simple, but in digikams code, only to click another
album and to display it, a lot of operations are done.

We have long history of troubles when it comes to keeping metadata
synchronized and image versions. I rewrote that code at least 3 times,
and still didn't manage to make everybody happy about it.
Synchronization is madness, because users have all sort of workflows,
where some stuff is done from file manager, some stuff done with
digiKam, some stuff done with other programs.

A open source project is about small incremental changes, we can't
simply throw half of digikam away and rewrite it in a different
matter. Maybe companies like Adobe have money and resources.

Here digiKam has barely 3 part-time developers.


On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Agustin Lobo <alobolistas at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
> Agus
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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