I think that placing the photos.db file under the Photos folder makes sense.
This begs the question though, why does the import have to copy the images to a location. Until the user decides to share or export their images, it sounds like a waste to have the images copied from one location on the harddisk to another. For importing from a camera directly that makes sense, but it doesn't make much sense to have to keep around 2 copies of the same image. I keep all of my images on a network drive and would rather not keep another copy on my desktop or symlink the Photos folder to another network folder. Perhaps the whole import process and the database should be reevaluated to make sure that it fits with what most users will actually do with their images. -Jason On 3/21/07, Brian J. Murrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 2007-22-03 at 01:08 +0300, Константин Маслов wrote: > Brian J. Murrell wrote: > >I still maintain that the photos database should be in the root of > the > >photos folder and that the paths should be relative to that > structure. > >Then it's portable and sharable without path issues. > Good idea! And, perhaps, make it to add this "folders databases" into > working environment "on the fly"? For example, when you plug in an > archive DVD and ask f-spot to open it. Yup. Another good reason to do it. I rather like that one in fact! Perhaps this angle on it could be the start of a standardization effort on how to manage photos and data about them all in one place. b. -- My other computer is your Microsoft Windows server. Brian J. Murrell _______________________________________________ F-spot-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/f-spot-list
_______________________________________________ F-spot-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/f-spot-list
