Bug 271672 - Change versioning files naming for better workflow
Summary: Change versioning files naming for better workflow
Status: REPORTED
Alias: None
Product: digikam
Classification: Applications
Component: Database-Versioning (show other bugs)
Version: 4.9.0
Platform: openSUSE Linux
: NOR wishlist
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Digikam Developers
URL:
Keywords:
: 276708 397440 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2011-04-25 09:36 UTC by wuselwu
Modified: 2023-05-27 07:50 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:
Latest Commit:
Version Fixed In:
Sentry Crash Report:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description wuselwu 2011-04-25 09:36:40 UTC
Version:           2.0.0 (using KDE 4.6.2) 
OS:                Linux

I think the versioning is a big step forward for Digikam. However, the current implementation IMHO still lacks concerning usablity.

Naming: If I give a picture a name, I intend the name to stick. However, as soon as I edit a pic, the current version is given an appendix "_v1" or so. It would be much better if the most current version keeps its original name and the older versions get an appendix.

Storage of older versions: Currently, older versions are hidden only in Digikam. If I use other programs to browse my pics (e.g. a media server to display them on TV), here I'm always confronted with all the older versions. There should be an option for an user-definable place to put the old versions.

Reproducible: Always
Comment 1 Marcel Wiesweg 2011-07-11 17:03:41 UTC
> Naming: If I give a picture a name, I intend the name to stick. However, as
> soon as I edit a pic, the current version is given an appendix "_v1" or so.
> It would be much better if the most current version keeps its original
> name and the older versions get an appendix.
> 
> Storage of older versions: Currently, older versions are hidden only in
> Digikam. If I use other programs to browse my pics (e.g. a media server to
> display them on TV), here I'm always confronted with all the older
> versions. There should be an option for an user-definable place to put the
> old versions.

Naming and storage directory are part of the same problem (and solution)

The code is prepared to have different naming schemes. I did not think of 
renaming and moving the original, but inspecting the code it seems there is no 
obstacle.

Initially, I had plans to allow scripts providing a custom naming scheme. It 
appeared that the relevant parts were a bit more complex than expected, so I 
prefer to have a closed set of options, possibly with some configuration.

There is a long discussion in some bug reports about naming schemes, without 
any conclusive suggestions.
Comment 2 wuselwu 2011-07-11 17:42:05 UTC
For a Digikam-user, usually it is quite easy to collaborate with other photo- and filemanagement-software. That's one of Digikam's (many) advantages, it does not take the pictures hostage, but all kinds of other programs can be used to access your photos.

The current versioning implementation breaks this feature. E.g. for me it's quite annoying because, using a UPNP-server to stream photos to the home TV for watching them, gets you flooded with dozens of old versions of all the pics you were not really aware of. The file manager does no longer represent the stuff Digikam displays. And so on. 

For me, anything would be better than the current implementation, so I simply turned this basically useful feature off: Could you please point me to the relevant discussions? Because using a hidden subfolder or giving older photo version an unique name making it easy to filter them out seems like a simple solution to me.
Comment 3 Marcel Wiesweg 2011-07-11 18:07:53 UTC
One is 103350, but there were other threads of discussion which I dont find atm.
You dont need to read all of it; various layouts were suggested, including putting originals and intermediate results in a subfolder or not, patterns of filename changes
Comment 4 caulier.gilles 2015-05-17 07:48:19 UTC
Larx,

This file still valid using last digiKam 4.10.0 ?

Gilles Caulier
Comment 5 wuselwu 2015-05-17 09:01:09 UTC
As the way Digikam handles the versioning file names seems not to have changed at all, the bug is still valid - I simply do not use versioning to avoid cluttering my photo drawers with tons of *_v?.jpg files. Or am I missing a new preferences setting ??

However, I am still at 4.9, as openSUSE repos do not yet contain 4.10.
Comment 6 caulier.gilles 2020-08-01 14:14:02 UTC
*** Bug 397440 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 7 caulier.gilles 2023-05-27 07:50:58 UTC
*** Bug 276708 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***