Hello Michael, thanks for following up. So it seems that at least you do _not_ consider 2.11 an experimental development snapshot which you wouldn't like to see shipped?
Michael Chudobiak [2010-03-24 13:47 -0000]: > 1. The import folder is specified in the Preferences button of the > import dialog. "Not a bug" :-) Ah, I guess it's a different philosophy now. Until 2.10, gthumb did (for me, anyway) exactly the right thing and did not try to own my photos. I create a subfolder for each event and label the directory accordingly, so that I can copy them around conveniently, have them browsable on my server, and be able to view them without the help of a separate database file. F-Spot and Shotwell fail utterly in that regard, since they stash away imported photos in an unmanageable internal hierarchy. Thus for me the destination directory isn't a preference, but something that I set each time I import photos. But I guess its a design decision how gthumb should treat photo folders and import. But of course it's your prerogative how to handle that. I guess I can resort back to drag&drop in nautilus, and do not use a photo manager at all then. > 2. Camera off - not sure about that. Please file a bug upstream. Done, https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=613875 > 3. Multiple select - https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=610419. > I'm not sure if/how that will be resolved. > > 4. Drag to folders - not implemented yet - should be - > https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=593431 Thanks for the references. > 5. Re-enable thumbnails - fixed in git, will be in > 2.11.2.1. Wrt. thumbnails I also found that the import dialog does not have any thumbnails at all. That's a pretty big showstopper, since you have no way to select which pictures you are interested in. Filed as https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=613876 > Anyway, I'm not sure what criteria Ubuntu uses for LTS packages, but > do keep in mind that 2.10.x is totally dead upstream and no fixes > are being released. 2.11.x is being actively developed and > maintained. Just so you know. Thanks. It's not a trivial decision indeed, but it seems to me that 2.11 still needs some time to bake until it caught up with 2.10's stability and workflow. (While I was collecting debug info for the two bugs I just filed I had gthumb crash on me, too :( ). 2.10 was rock solid and "just worked". I was told that the gvfs-umount call was broken, but fixing that should be trivial. Thank you! Martin -- Martin Pitt | http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org) ** Bug watch added: GNOME Bug Tracker #613875 https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=613875 ** Bug watch added: GNOME Bug Tracker #613876 https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=613876 -- [lucid] downgrade to stable 2.10 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/545871 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
