https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=196672
--- Comment #3 from Jaakko Luttinen <jaakko.lutti...@iki.fi> --- One point of the "dynamic" date is that the album shouldn't have any date as such, only the images have dates. And then, the date of the album is just computed from the images (oldest, newest or average). If I add/remove images, the date of the album should change accordingly. This is what Shotwell does and I think it's intuitive. For me, it is very confusing that an album has a date and it can (and by default is) something very different from the photo dates. In my thinking, the images have dates and the "album date" just reflects that somehow. I understand that for efficiency reasons the album date is stored in the database and thus it needs to be updated automatically whenever the image collection changes in the album. Thus, the album date in the database isn't "user data" but rather just cached date. Therefore, I don't see any violation of the principle. :) And of course, this wouldn't have to be a default option. Also, I understand that sometimes people might want to put dates on albums so that it has nothing to do with the dates of the images, but I think that is not a typical case. At least I have never had any use for such a feature. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
