Hallöchen! Sorry, I hit the wrong button in my mail program. I sent bogus copies of this posting around.
Tobias Ellinghaus writes: > [...] > > The only problem is that it wouldn't work, because, contrary to > your assumption, time stamps are totally unreliable. For one you > can't be sure that two computers have clocks running in sync. Yes but a couple of seconds don't do any harm. Additionally, you can detect that DB and XMP are in-sync reliably in any case. > You also don't know if the file system updates time stamps. I think you really can assure this. > You also don't know if the copy mechanism preserves the time > stamps of the files. There are too many unknowns to make this a > feasible solution. But apart from that it's really brilliant. Fair enough, but my milage varies FWIW. You may think of timestamps as soft fragile meta data, but I think it is not. I use it for rsync'ing my machines and for backups without trouble. BTW, rsync includes file size, too. Both can be scanned very quickly without actually opening the files. (Maybe it is also a matter of perspective: You are a developer with accurate insight into what the DB is and how it works. But for me, library.db is a strange black box. Instead, "my picture" is the RAW+XMP. ;-) Tschö, Torsten. -- Torsten Bronger Jabber ID: [email protected] or http://bronger-jmp.appspot.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS, MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep your skills current with LearnDevNow - 3,200 step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft MVPs and experts. ON SALE this month only -- learn more at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnmore_123012 _______________________________________________ Darktable-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/darktable-users
