[dev] Re: [cvs] commit: ansel/docs TODO

[Chuck Hagenbuch]

Quoting Ben Chavet <ben at chavet.net>:

> Do you think that this would be used enough to justify the code 
> changes?  I ask, because we currently have a 'copy' feature which 
> essentially has the same
> result.  Granted it uses extra space by making a 2nd copy of the image, but
> think of this scenario:
>
> * User1 has an image that User2 would like to include in his gallery, so he
> links to it
>
> * User1 decides to edit this image.
>
> * User2 doesn't like the changes that User1 made to the image.  He now has to
> decide if he wants the new image in his gallery or to just delete it
> because he doesn't have a copy of the original image.

There seems to be some confusion about Copy vs. having a single image in
multiple galleries.

They are NOT the same thing. Copying is for when you want a *new* copy of the
image. Right now, it can be used to fake having one image in multiple
galleries, but having copy doesn't allow the "bucket"/content library approach
of assigning images to multiple galleries, and having images assigned to
galleries by pointers (which is really what we have now - we just only allow
one pointer) would not remove the need for Copy functionality.

-chuck

--
"Regard my poor demoralized mule!" - Juan Valdez