On Wed, 2009-11-04 at 23:26 +0100, Silvano wrote: > It's obvious to me that the F-Spot maintainers are more interested on > fancy features (rolls support, extensions, rating...) than on fixing > this hated feature (because unexpected, because undocumented...). > > In my opinion, that's for them a desired feature (if not, they would > have never bothered to implement it) and therefore no urgent fix is > required. They probably think, that documenting is a nice to have... > > I hope that you have luck and this feature gets fixed some day. I even > offered once to fix it, but one of the maintainers told me that it was > in his plans doing it. Repeating requests for that might convince them > to fix it :-) > > Regards, > Silvano > From my (admittedly limited) understanding, the developers are still trying to figure out the best way of handling timestamp modification. My proposed solution for the time being would be to simply offer users a choice, even it's buried in GConf, as to whether F-Spot should modify timestamps or leave them alone. This should be alongside the option of having F-Spot not touch metadata at all, and store tags and such only in the DB. Having not looked at the codebase myself, I don't know what the underlying problems are that have kept this issue open for over 3 years, but frankly, something needs to be done. Ubuntu, which includes F-Spot as it's default photo-manager, has this issue marked as a high importance bug. Some people have even been pushing for F-Spot to be removed from the default Ubuntu install until the issue is resolved. I don't want to see that happen; I'd rather that Ubuntu ship a version of F-Spot patched to leave timestamps alone, at least as a stopgap measure until this is dealt with in F-Spot. The Ubuntu bug is https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/f-spot/+bug/175191 Regards, -- Steve McGrath smcgrath23 gmail com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part