Re: Goal #3: item 'Photos dir'

["Ben Monnahan" <monnahan gmail com>]

Hi again :)

> Don't we want to make paths relative to Photos?  So that users can
> move it around as neccesary? Again, should we move the current Photos
> there if it doesn't already exist?

Is it the point of this part of the goal? did I misunderstood
something ? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the initials bugs entry and
patches were to whange the default directory where f-spot *imports*
picture when you select 'copy' or import directly from the camera.

Having all path relative to the Photos directory will break the actual
logic of f-spot.  As a remember, now, you can import picture without
copying them in ~/Photos, so f-spot is able to handle images outside the
Photos directory.

Moving and re-organizing images is (again, correct me if I'm wrong) the
subject of another enhancement proposal.

Entirely correct.  This would be invasive and is way too big of a change for the current goal.
 

So, in my mind, f-spot will run on one db (do not put the user in
trouble) with a configurable *import* directory, and with a possibility
to run f-spot on a different db (with or without another import
directory) as command line option.

For me, it's the best way to integrate all the requested features
without breaking the actual logic and users habits.

Rethinking it, I think you are right here.  Definitely as a first step this is the way to go.  I'm still concerned about the following usage pattern:

Joe Blow hears about F-Spot and decides to give it a try.
He imports a bunch of photos and tags them.
He realizes he's almost out of space on /home, but has plenty in a separate partition /files
He wants to change to have /files/Photos be his new import directory
He wants to have all of his photos together for simplicity/backup/etc

From what I understand of the current plan, the first photos he imported would stay in ~/Photos, and new imports would go to /files/Photos?  Is this ideal?  What if he is a non-English speaker and Photos doesn't make any sense to him?  Again, this may be something we need to accept giving the 2 week constraint, and just having in the ability to change it would be a big step forward.

I don't actually import to Photos because I like to leave my photos in directories by event.  Does the case I raise here worry the import to Photos users? Or not?
 

>
> My only other thought is, remember the request that the DB be moved
> into Photos?  Is that something we want to consider at this point?  It
> seems the ideal for the multiple albums case as well as the
> portability case.  That way its all stored in one bunch.  If nothing
> else it touches on a lot of the same issues as these bugs, so we
> should probably take it into account with this patch.  Unless we
> decide to discard it.
>

This still appeals to me, but is again outside the current goal.

Ben