[Shotwell] Final call for testing Shotwell 0.5

[Adam Dingle]

Martin,

thanks for doing even more pre-release testing!  Glad to hear you found 
no major issues.
> --
>
> "Can't re-export images originally imported from CD"
> Repro steps: fetch, unpack and import these:
> http://temp.minimum.se/shotwell_crashers/bugs.tgz
> Export both images to a new folder, switch back to
> Shotwell, drag saturation to bottom on both photos
> and re-export to the same folder. The export of
> bug400.jpg now fails because Shotwell can't overwrite
> the previously exported bug400.jpg (because since this
> file was chmod 400 apparently the exported version of
> it is also chmod 400 which doesn't really make sense).
> For example on CDs files are often all chmod 400 or 444
> and in some cases I've seen files chmod'd +x on CDs.
> I don't think it's entirely clear what is the correct
> behavior here but I think reusing the chmod from the
> imported file for the exported file is definitely not
> the right way to go.
>   

Right.  I've filed a ticket in our bug tracking system.  We may possibly 
fix this for 0.5.

> A secondary issue here is that Shotwell should bails
> out with a generic "file error" for something as simple
> as a "chmod -w"ed file. I think it's better with a
> "really overwrite read-only file?" confirmation question
> than expecting users to chmod +w and re-export yet again.
>   

You're right that we could ask "really overwrite read-only file?"  On 
the other hand, even Nautilus doesn't do that when copying files, and I 
think we probably don't need to go any further than Nautilus at this 
time.  If you do feel strongly that we should implement this, feel free 
to file a ticket.

> If an export fails it would be nice to have some warning
> printed "per file" to the terminal for debugging purposes
> because the Shotwell message box only says "X photos failed
> to export". For example, in the catch where you do failed++
> you could also do:
> warning("Failed to export photo '%s' due to file error '%s'.", basename, err.message);
>   

Right, or we could report the failed filename(s) through a dialog, which 
might be better for (typical) users who didn't happen to launch Shotwell 
from the command line.  Ticketed.

> CRITICAL should be printed to the terminal by default
> (giving better bug reports from people who are not that
> familar with Shotwell and who don't bother learning about
> SHOTWELL_X envars). Maybe WARNING as well but you seem to
> be using that quite a lot for stuff which is not Shotwell bugs.
>   

A reasonable suggestion.  Ticketed.

adam