[Digikam-users] Folders, albums and collections

[Andreas Neumann]

Hi,

I have to agree with Daniel. The current implementation of Digikam is 
very nice, open and transparent. Any application can update the folders 
and pictures without any limitations. If Digikam would change the way it 
works now, I would regret it a lot and would make me look for 
alternative software.

Andreas

On 19.06.2015 10:19, Daniel Bauer wrote:
>
>
> Am 19.06.2015 um 09:41 schrieb Agustin Lobo:
>> 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.
>>
>> Agus
>>
>>
>
> No, I do not agree at all.
>
> That digikam reflects the directories and files just naturally, as 
> they are in the file system, is one of its great advantages. It makes 
> everything more transparent and easy to maintain. One can 
> use/move/add/delete folders and files also outside of digikam using 
> the file system or saving from an other application (like gimp etc.) 
> into folders/albums. Backup is easy too, this way.
>
> If I delete an image or a folder I want to have it deleted. It's my 
> computer, not facebook or google.
>
> I don't want "deleted" and deleted things, and in the end not knowing 
> if something is really deleted or not, respectively having to use 
> another application to clean up and synchronize file system with 
> "virtual stuff". I don't want to have other folder names than those 
> that physically appear on my HD.
>
> A virtual album view would be another layer, making things even more 
> complicated. More database access, slower, more possibilities for 
> errors and bad synchronization... no, thanks.
>
> No no, just keep it as is, digikam!
>
> Daniel
>