Scan for new items takes ages after syncing collection btw. two computers

[Remco Viëtor]

On mardi 31 janvier 2017 11:35:18 CET Chris Green wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 11:10:35AM +0100, Remco Viëtor wrote:
> > On mardi 31 janvier 2017 08:41:10 CET Chris Green wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 10:43:49PM -0600, Jim Gomi wrote:
> > > > It's much safer to configure digikam to write all tags etc to the
> > > > image
> > > > files, and then just sync the image files.
> > > 
> > > Which is what I have been saying should be the default, for years,
> > > for this reason among others.
> > 
> > Any default setting should in principle limit possible harm. Writing just
> > changed metadata to image files _as_a_default_ would go against that.
> > Having it as an option is fine, then it's the user who decides he can
> > accept the associated risks.
> 
> I didn't mean just changed metadata, I want *all* metadata *always* in
> the files.  It's the only sensible option (for me anyway).

Apparently, always writing all metadata is *NOT* the only sensible option for 
everyone (or we wouldn't be having this exchange).
- I'm *not* saying it shouldn't be possible when the user wants it.

And the part about XMP files you elided is important here, as it gives an 
alternative that still provides redundancy in cases of database corruption.

Also, there are arguments *against* storing all metadata in the image files, 
like privacy considerations (your privacy, and that of anyone figuring in your 
images, think geotagging, face recognition, ...) which for some can be as 
important as your arguments to make always writing metadata the default
(and again, the discussion for me is about it being the installation 
*default*)

Remco