Accidentally installed digiKam 1.9 - is it stable enough for production?

[Elle Stone]

I was running digiKam 1.7 (Ubuntu 10.10). But it was using exiv2 0.19 and a correspondingly older libkexiv2. Other efforts to upgrade exiv2 failed. So I followed the directions to "Download and Install SVN KDE4 along stable version" and found that I had installed digiKam 1.9.

Is 1.9 from 2011-Jan-25 stable enough to use as "production"? Or should I reinstall 1.7 or try 1.8 instead?

I also got 2.0 beta running, following http://ubuntuku.org/22/how-to-install-compile-digikam-2-0-0-beta-from-source/ (except installing in /usr/local), but I overwrote it when I installed 1.9, and 2.0 wasn't standalone. I wouldn't mind helping to test the beta (my goodness that versioning stuff writes a lot of metadata!), if I could keep a stable version running alongside, along with using exiv2 0.21 - not sure how to proceed.

Elle

[Gilles Caulier-4]

1.9.0 is just 1.8.0 with some little fix.

1.x serie is considerated as stable for production. No new features
are added, only bugfixes are applied. Look in project/NEWS files for
details.

2.0.0 still in beta stage. It's not considerated as unstable. Not all
features haven't be tested yet. But all fixes from 1.x series are
backported to 2.x.

We plan to release 1.9 in one month and that all. next version will be
2.0 planed around may if all will be fine.

To resume : using svn trunk source code (1.x serie) as production is fine.

Gilles Caulier

2011/1/26 Elle Stone <[hidden email]>:

>
> I was running digiKam 1.7 (Ubuntu 10.10). But it was using exiv2 0.19 and a
> correspondingly older libkexiv2. Other efforts to upgrade exiv2 failed. So I
> followed the directions to "Download and Install SVN KDE4 along stable
> version" and found that I had installed digiKam 1.9.
>
> Is 1.9 from 2011-Jan-25 stable enough to use as "production"? Or should I
> reinstall 1.7 or try 1.8 instead?
>
> I also got 2.0 beta running, following
> http://ubuntuku.org/22/how-to-install-compile-digikam-2-0-0-beta-from-source/
> (except installing in /usr/local), but I overwrote it when I installed 1.9,
> and 2.0 wasn't standalone. I wouldn't mind helping to test the beta (my
> goodness that versioning stuff writes a lot of metadata!), if I could keep a
> stable version running alongside, along with using exiv2 0.21 - not sure how
> to proceed.
>
> Elle
> --
> View this message in context: http://digikam.1695700.n4.nabble.com/Accidentally-installed-digiKam-1-9-is-it-stable-enough-for-production-tp3237220p3237220.html
> Sent from the digikam-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> _______________________________________________
> Digikam-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users
>

_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

[Elle Stone]

Gilles, thanks. Elle

On 1/26/11, Gilles Caulier <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 1.9.0 is just 1.8.0 with some little fix.
>
> 1.x serie is considerated as stable for production. No new features
> are added, only bugfixes are applied. Look in project/NEWS files for
> details.
>
> 2.0.0 still in beta stage. It's not considerated as unstable. Not all
> features haven't be tested yet. But all fixes from 1.x series are
> backported to 2.x.
>
> We plan to release 1.9 in one month and that all. next version will be
> 2.0 planed around may if all will be fine.
>
> To resume : using svn trunk source code (1.x serie) as production is fine.
>
> Gilles Caulier
>
> 2011/1/26 Elle Stone <[hidden email]>:
>>
>> I was running digiKam 1.7 (Ubuntu 10.10). But it was using exiv2 0.19 and
>> a
>> correspondingly older libkexiv2. Other efforts to upgrade exiv2 failed. So
>> I
>> followed the directions to "Download and Install SVN KDE4 along stable
>> version" and found that I had installed digiKam 1.9.
>>
>> Is 1.9 from 2011-Jan-25 stable enough to use as "production"? Or should I
>> reinstall 1.7 or try 1.8 instead?
>>
>> I also got 2.0 beta running, following
>> http://ubuntuku.org/22/how-to-install-compile-digikam-2-0-0-beta-from-source/
>> (except installing in /usr/local), but I overwrote it when I installed
>> 1.9,
>> and 2.0 wasn't standalone. I wouldn't mind helping to test the beta (my
>> goodness that versioning stuff writes a lot of metadata!), if I could keep
>> a
>> stable version running alongside, along with using exiv2 0.21 - not sure
>> how
>> to proceed.
>>
>> Elle
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://digikam.1695700.n4.nabble.com/Accidentally-installed-digiKam-1-9-is-it-stable-enough-for-production-tp3237220p3237220.html
>> Sent from the digikam-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Digikam-users mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Digikam-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users
>

_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users