On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Jens Fendler <jensfend...@gmail.com> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 10/19/2012 08:12 AM, johannes hanika wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Kevin <kmg...@bigpond.com> wrote: >>> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:50:23 johannes hanika wrote: Should not >>> the current db be moved to the new location / name? (In my case >>> that is what I wanted but that may not be what dt is designed to >>> do.) >> >> ack, deleted the setting. --library is better anyways. > > I agree, and while talking about changing libraries I noticed one > other thing that is not really a bug, but should probably be avoided: > dt can be launched multiple times in parallel, which (although I don't > have a usecase for it) is probably a good thing. Except the different > processes can all work on the same library, which can get messy if > changes are made in one process but not immediately synced in the other. > > What do you guys think of a per-library lock mechanism that only > allows one dt invocation per library? (I.e. you can only have > different dt windows running if you specify a unique --library for > each of them)?
I doubt anybody would be against this. At least I think it's a good idea. A while back we took a look at libunique, which has been deprecated as it's implicit in GTK3. So when we move to GTK3 we'll get this for free (well not per database)... But there aren't any plans to move yet... Regards, Pascal de Bruijn ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_sfd2d_oct _______________________________________________ darktable-devel mailing list darktable-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/darktable-devel
