[digiKam-users] Digikam puts its "signature" in metadata even when no other changes - why?

[Jack Marxer]

I think that the option to update the timestamp (Settings, Configure
> digikam, Metadata, "update filestamp when files are modified")
SHOULD BE DISABLED BY DEFAULT.
I just saw this today and am very sorry that I didn't notice it before.


On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 11:16 PM Chris Green <cl at isbd.net> wrote:

> woenx <marcpalaus at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't know about the "signature", other software does the same thing.
>
> Other software doing the same thing doesn't necessarily make it a good
> idea! :-)
>
>
> > However, disabling the option to update the timestamp (Settings,
> Configure
> > digikam, Metadata, "update filestamp when files are modified) on every
> > picture it's the first thing I do when I install digikam. I lost lots of
> > dates that were not saved to the metadata (the original date when the
> > picture was taken) because of that.
> >
> My pictures are stored in a year/month/day hierarchy so their
> directory tells me their date.  Relying on the file creation or
> modification date as the 'picture' date isn't a good idea IMHO.
> I need to rely on that date to ensure the right files get copied to
> the other system (using rsync).
>
>
> > I guess the signature is only written to files that have been modified.
> > Which is all of them in your case.
> >
> I didn't modify all of them, it's quite difficult to do something that
> modifies 30 thousand files!  I probably made changes that I wanted to
> do to a few hundred files.  I just wanted those files copied to the
> other system.
>
>
> > I don't know why it's not disabled by default.
> >
> Yes, it may be something that some people want to do but I would have
> thought that most people *don't* want it.
>
> --
> Chris Green
> ·
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/digikam-users/attachments/20180921/84371e18/attachment.html>