On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 11:44:23AM +0100, Dougie Nisbet wrote: > At the moment I think it takes 3 steps to physically delete images > (move to wastebasket, move to desktop wastebasket, delete from > desktop wastebasket). > > Am I correct in thinking that if I simply physically delete files at > the command line shotwell will automatically detect that the images > have disappeared and update its database appropriately? [...]
I doubt that would make sense. If files disappear, it shows that something is wrong. And some users asked for a feature that allows to detect temporarily missing files. So... when the database would just automatically update itself on missing files, it would make no sense here; and it would not be much more than the filesystem plus some metadata. A missing file should rather be a starting point for an investigation. I also see no reason why this wastebasket-issue is so bad. If you don't real-delete file by file, this is making sense. First kick out all files, and before you decide really to delete them physically, one step in between is to do. But then you can delete all files at once. Hence it is not a really big problem, that the files will be deleted physically only by that one step more. You maybe have selected some hundred files for deleting, and then it's 1/100 of a command per file. This is not so much additional overhead, but gives one step more of save behaviour. I doubt it would make sense to change that. Ciao, Oliver _______________________________________________ Shotwell mailing list [email protected] http://lists.yorba.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/shotwell
