On 02/16/2012 06:31 AM, Turgut Durduran wrote:
Turgut,
sadly, I don't think this sort of workflow is going to work well with
Shotwell today. The problem is that there's really no easy way to sync
i>nformation (and photos) between two Shotwell databases. A major future
goal for Shotwell is to make this kind of workflow reasonable, but we're
not there yet. See
http://redmine.yorba.org/issues/1292
adam
Hi Adam,
Thanks for your comment and the pointer. Of course, that type of syncronization
would be ideal.
In the meantime, I am willing to continue work on the premise that changes happen
only on one computer at a time. If I change things in both computers then I need to
lose the changes made in one. This was my work-flow with the behaviour that f-spot
had which was to simply ignore the missing photos. The 'mark missing photos"
type of behaviour was enabled by extensions (I think, I never used it).
This won't work since Shotwell is completely non-destructive: when you
make changes to a photo, Shotwell records the edits in its database (and
reapplies them every time you open a photo) but doesn't write to the
original photo file. And there's no way to propagate those edits from
one database to the other. So your second machine will have no way of
seeing the changes made on the first machine, unless you explicitly
export all photos which you have changed.
Thus, Shotwell's data model currently makes it hard to share edited
photos with other instances of Shotwell or other applications. This is
a significant limitation, and we want to change this at some point,
probably by keeping more information about edits in files. See
http://redmine.yorba.org/issues/1798
http://redmine.yorba.org/issues/1879
It seems to me that shotwell also would not crash if missing photos are not market out or
updated, so I wonder if it is possible to "opt out" from the time spent looking
for and marking up the missing photos. A simple configuration switch may be?
I suppose we could consider an option to skip the startup scan, though
it would probably make an important performance difference for users who
are storing photos on network drives, which is not generally too useful
given the limitations above. I've nevertheless ticketd this here:
http://redmine.yorba.org/issues/4754
adam
_______________________________________________
Shotwell mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.yorba.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/shotwell
