For the particular issue I raised, changing how widget focus is handled would not really fix it properly -- without confirmation dialogs or some other safety mechanism for the "discard" and "paste all" commands, it would still be possible to, effectively, destroy one's database with a single keystroke or click.
-- August Schwerdfeger [email protected] On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 12:26 PM, I. Ivanov <[email protected]> wrote: > The simple point is - DT can be catastrophic in certain cases. > > As the original question pointed - if the user intends to copy / paste > metadata information and instead copy / paste image stack - even by > accident - the results can be drastic and very unpleasant. > > If you have 1000-2000 images - all corrected and then just editing the > metadata - 2 cases can happen - wrongly override the history stack (and > never notice) then all corrections are wrong - so you can end up printing > wrong pictures. Or wrongly override history stack and notice it - then > invest hours or days to figure out what image should be where on the > correction state. Either case is very much not acceptable. > > FYI - I do edit metadata last as considerable amount of images are > discarded and the metadata do vary from image to image with some common > parts in it. > > So - while DT takes extreme care to preserve the RAW file - it leaves the > .XML side cart very vulnerable to a user mistake. In my opinion it would be > very nice to have some change of behavior to be safer. > > Regards, > > B > > On 2017-03-31 10:10 AM, Colin Adams wrote: > > On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 at 17:58 Pascal Obry <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Colin, >> >> > In darkroom, using the film-strip to select the photo to be edited. >> > If I press a Function key to set the colour label, or a numeric to >> > set the star rating, the setting is made on the photo which has the >> > mouse pointer over it in the film strip. Not the selected photo (i.e. >> > the one visible in the darkroom). >> > This seems wrong to me, and causes me problems. I've NEVER want to >> > set the rating for a photo that is not visible in the darkroom. >> >> This looks like a feature to me and I use it this way to mark multiple >> photos very close with the same rating and/or color. >> > > Whereas to me it's a bug. > A simple solution to make everyone happy is to make it a configurable > option. > > > >> > Here's another. In the lighttable, the Image information in the left- >> > hand pane shows the information for the photo under the pointer. Not >> > the selected photo. In this case, I can't see any other behaviour >> > makes sense, as there maybe multiple selections. >> >> Again, this is a feature. Quite handy. >> >> I understand that you may not like it but it is quite convenient to >> > I said I can't see that any other behaviour makes sense, so I don't know > why you think I don't like it. (I do get confused by it sometimes). > > >> look for information on some picture quite fast without having to >> select them. >> >> The problem with the UI and behavior is that we have all a different >> way to see things. >> > > So configuration options can tackle that. > > ____________________________________________________________________________ > darktable user mailing list to unsubscribe send a mail to > [email protected] > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________ > darktable user mailing list to unsubscribe send a mail to > [email protected] > ____________________________________________________________________________ darktable user mailing list to unsubscribe send a mail to [email protected]
