digikam default options

[Jim Gomi]

It's just a suggestion. 

I agree that the tooltip helps, but still,

1) The wording of the option description in its current context is
ambiguous (as this whole discussion has illustrated) and can be easily
improved, so why not?

2) Not everyone gets tooltips appearing (I don't; maybe I inadvertently
disabled them?) 



One shouldn't need a tooltip to understand the basic functioning

On Sat, 2017-01-14 at 23:09 +0100, Gilles Caulier wrote:
> The option tooltip from Setup Metadata panel is enough clear...
> 
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/digikam/31499793873/in/dateposted-publi
> c/
> 
> Gilles Caulier
> 
> 2017-01-14 22:57 GMT+01:00 Jim Gomi <gomi at mailup.net>:
> > On Sat, 2017-01-14 at 19:36 +0100, Simon Frei wrote:
> > > In the section "Reading and Writing Metadata", where the option
> > > "Update file timestamp when files are modified" is located, you
> > > configure how this information should be written to the file.
> > These
> > > are different things entirely.
> > 
> > I suggest this should be worded more unambiguously in the Configure
> > ->
> > Metadata menu. After all, "metadata" does usually refer to EXIF etc
> > stored inside the file.
> > 
> > E.g., instead of "Update file timestamp when files are modified" it
> > could say "Update operating system's timestamp of a file when the
> > file
> > is modified"
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > >
> > > On 14/01/17 19:08, Chris Green wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 06:15:33PM +0100, jdd wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Le 14/01/2017 à 16:51, Chris Green a écrit :
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 07:14:54AM -0700, Andrey Goreev
> > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >    Wanted to add to my message below.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >    I think adding any info to metadata should not be
> > > > > > > considered as "file
> > > > > > >    modifying". Why would you add any metadata? To get
> > your
> > > > > > > pictures
> > > > > > >    organized, right? So why would mess with timestamps
> > then?
> > > > > > > Original
> > > > > > >    timestamps should be preserved.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > The *files* timestamp (there are three actually) is
> > operating
> > > > > > system
> > > > > > information and is an indicator to the operating system and
> > is
> > > > > > used by
> > > > > > other programs and the OS to manage the file.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If I modify a file by changing the metadata I *do* want to
> > > > > > change the
> > > > > > timestamp because this tells the operatiny system (and
> > other
> > > > > > software)
> > > > > > that the file has been modified and should, for example, be
> > > > > > backed up.
> > > > > > Quite a lot of backup programs in particular rely on the
> > file
> > > > > > timestamps to decide whether a file should be backed up.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The times in the metadata are for use by such as Digikam.
> > > > > >
> > > > > two things:
> > > > >
> > > > > * digikam have to be more clear about what date is modified
> > > > > amoung all the
> > > > > versions possible
> > > > >
> > > > Yes, a very good point.  For me I want Digikam to store
> > > > *everything*
> > > > in the file and not rely on any external information whether
> > > > operating
> > > > system or a separate database.  If I copy an image I want *all*
> > its
> > > > information to go with it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > * this may be quite hard, because *system* dates vary with
> > file
> > > > > system.
> > > > > Being linux or other, what are the dates kept on a FAT32 SD
> > card?
> > > > >
> > > > Exactly, all the more reason not to rely on or use system dates
> > as
> > > > having any meaning for the image.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > 
>