On 02/17/2012 02:18 AM, Turgut Durduran wrote:
Hi Adam,
Thanks again for all your responses and links. My comments are below:
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.
Reading this, I am bit puzzled because I am copying the photos.db file between
computers so I would imagine the changes would propagate. I was following the
FAQ entry here:
http://redmine.yorba.org/projects/shotwell/wiki/ShotwellFAQ#How-can-I-copy-my-Shotwell-library-to-a-new-computer
I guess I am being unclear in my description, so I am editing my original one
There are two computers:
a- Main computer:
- all photos are linked (by symbolic links) to folders in a folder "sync"
e.g. in other words, there is a folder sync made of bunch of symbolic
links that point to where the photos are
- let's say the absolute path to this folder is /sync
- .shotwell/data/photo.db is a symbolic link to /sync/photo.db
b- A laptop computer with limited hard-drive space
- it has /sync with the same symbolic links but most of them point to
nowhere.
- it has a sub-set of the photos that I am just working on or have just
copied from various sources
- /sync has symbolic links that point to that subset
- .shotwell/data/photo.db is a symbolic link to /sync/photo.db
- photo.db gets synced with that in the main computer (a) every night or
as often as possible.
(a) acts as the "Master" and (b) the "Slave". I only edit photos in one
computer at a time and if by accident I edit them in both, (a)
overwrites (b) by copying its photo.db over that of (b)
At the end, both computers end up with the same photo.db but *without* merging
, just simply overwriting.
If I am patient enough to wait for the missing photos marking/unmarking
process, it seems to work fine to me.
Let me know if this makes sense and if this could be implemented with the
feature I have requested.
Ah, OK, now I understand what you're doing. I hadn't realized that you
were copying photo.db in its entirety from one machine to the other, and
only making changes on the machine that is holding the current
photo.db. Clever. :) Yes, I think this will work, even if some photos
are on only one machine or the other.
And yes, I agree that if the startup scan is slow with large libraries
(and we can't make it fast) then it might be nice to let users skip it
if they want.
adam
_______________________________________________
Shotwell mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.yorba.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/shotwell
