Re: Original versions in photo_versions table?

[Ruben Vermeersch <ruben savanne be>]

On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 22:25 +0200, Rainer Menzner wrote:
> Hi everyone, 
> 
> I have a quick question. While relocating the folder where my photos
> are stored, I looked into the SQLite database and it appears that in
> the table photo_versions the are images with version "Original". This
> is with f-spot 0.6.1.5 on Ubuntu Lucid Lynx. All original images
> imported after starting with that new f-spot occur in the photos table
> as well as in photo_versions. 
> 
> The f-spot home page database schema description says that table
> photo_versions is only dedicated to alternate versions of a photo, and
> with my former f-spot release this was indeed the case. I have
> experimentally deleted all "Original"-rows from the photo_versions
> table and f-spot still shows all images properly. 

Funny that you mention it, I was just hacking on these things yesterday.

The database docs on the website are outdated (and will become very
outdated very soon). I should probably delete them.

We had a time where the Original version was not stored in the
photo_versions table. This came from a natural evolution where all photo
data was in the photos table, with the photo_versions table being added
later on.

When you think about it now, it doesn't make sense anymore not to
include the original version data in photo_versions. Data that is common
to all versions should go in photos, data that is specific in to a
version should go in photo_versions. The current version is a bit of an
in-between version which makes some things way too complex.

> So is that behavior by design or has anybody else seen this and it
> could be a bug in f-spot? Otherwise I could have mixed up my system by
> editing the database. 

Am going to push code that resolves this in one of the next versions,
either 0.7.0 or 0.7.1. It will make photos simpler and a lot of code
will be simplified as well.

This is related to the changes in the duplicate detection:
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=621066