New stack variables - problem?

[stephock]

I've just updated to 5.8.2, and there appears to be a problem with the new variable {File.Relations.Stack.Count}. This contains the total version stack count for the master file, but shows a zero value for all relevant versions.

I've attached a screen dump and the relevant layout file. Take a look at pictures 5 and 6. These comprise a version stack. Picture 5 is the 'version' and 6 is the 'master', however the 'V' at the bottom right, which addresses the same variable in each instance, shows a 2 for the master but a 0 for the version.

I've created temporary version stacks of up to 4 files, and the above behaviour holds true.

I've also played around with the {File.Stack.Count} variable; but this seems to work as intended, i.e. the total in the stack is shown for all files.

Thanks,

Stephen

[Mario]

This is correct. As documented, this variable is only filled for the master. Not for versions.

Sorry. This was not documented. I have this documented for the next release.
A version cannot know this because a version can be in any number of version stacks.

[stephock]

Explained. Thanks Mario. That also explains why the version icon in the top left of the picture only appears on the master.

As always, keep up the good work!

[sinus]

Yep, the new variables are cool!

Specialy the count of stacks, maybe I will include this in my file window layout, because the native number of stacks is not always enough quick readable for me, specialy if the thumbs are very different.
If I set this number on a background with always the same color, I think, it is better readable.

Thanks for these variables. 

[stephock]

Markus, I also find the total of stacks and versions very difficult to read on the thumbnail, especially on a dark background. I mentioned this in my other post on this topic. That's the main reason for including this total in the layout...

[Mario]

I've made a quick check with some very dark backgrounds. I can read it just fine.
Does this look different on your computers?

[sinus]

Of course, if I look so near and  have only some colonns, then I can read it better.

But often I have a lot of images onscreen and then it is not that easy (that is why I made all my icons).

The problem is (my impression), that this number has always another background-color. Sometimes very good viewable, sometimes not.
The eyes must always "jump".

And for me personally it is also still more difficult, because the two numbes (version and stacks) are not very good distinguisable.
I wrote this, maybe 3 years ago  ... but of course, if this is only my point of view, then I have to manage with it. 

It seems so, that Stephen does also have this "problem".

Of course it is minor "problem", and I guess, not for a lot of users. And changing stuff ist always not easy, I know.

Attached two "cluttered" views.

In German, at least in Swiss German we say "Das Bessere ist der Feind des Guten" (the better is the enemy of the good one), and that, what we have now for a long time, is good, for sure.
But I think, it could be better ... but don't ask, how I would make it better! 

[Mario]

I can see the stack icons in your screen shots quite well. Probably an age thing 
I use only 4K monitors, this is why my screen shots appear so big. My monitors all have at least 3960 pixels width.

[stephock]

We can't all have 4K monitors! Maybe the icon can be a bit larger? Or not be semi-transparent. Or have a white outline? Or white background with a black outline? An outline is important: even your example, Mario, where the background is black, the icon is sort of lost. An outline would set it off very well. Just saying...

Oh, BTW, Markus, Herzliche Grüße aus Brasilien!

[sinus]

I can see the stack icons in your screen shots quite well. Probably an age thing 

I am getting older too, yes. 

Well, one day, maybe, I will also have a 4K-Monitor. Though I believe, it is a kind of contrast.
If I at the delivered layouts from IMatch, then the other icons and stars and labels are quite good visible, in contrary to these stack numbers.

If I am getting older, maybe in 1 or 2 years I will again mention this. 

[sinus]

Oh, BTW, Markus, Herzliche Grüße aus Brasilien!

Thanks, Stephen, perfect German! And a wunderfull country, where you are living ... and warm, I guess, here the winter is here and it is quite cold. brbrbr...
Also best wishes!

[stephock]

A version cannot know this because a version can be in any number of version stacks.

Mario, on further reflection, I cannot understand your implementation of 'Versions' and 'Stacks'. By definition, a 'version' can only be a version of ONE file. Let's imagine a file, A.RAW; we can have various versions of that file, A.JPG, A.PSD. A.OTH, etc. If we then take one of these versions, A.JPG, for instance, and make versions of that (B&W, or for printing, or email, etc), these files are STILL a version of the original A.RAW file.

On the other hand, a 'Stack' is an arbitrary collection of various files, which would otherwise not be connected in any way. I can see therefore, how a file in a 'Stack' can be in any different number of stacks.

However, IMatch will not allow a file to be in any number of stacks . If I have a stack with three files (A.RAW, A.JPG and A.PSD), and try to include any one of those files in another stack of, let's say, two files (B.AAA and B.BBB), instead of having two stacks (the original, A.RAW, A.JPG and A.PSD; and the new one, B.AAA, B.BBB and A.JPG), I end up up with ONE large stack containing five files (A.RAW, A.JPG, A.PSD, B.AAA and B.BBB).

I can however, take a file from a version-stack and add that to another file to create two version-stacks (although why I would want to do that, I don't understand). This then creates its own problem, as I cannot then 'toggle' the state of the version-stacks in the main file window. The only way to access and manipulate the individual files is by using the stack panel...

Or am I just worrying about semantics? That is, what you call a version-stack is what I would call a stack, and vice-versa?

Just saying...

[Mario]

A file can be a version of several masters, if you configure it so.
A file can be only in one stack.
By definition.

[stephock]

OK then,  it's a question of semantics, after all, anything can be anything, by definition. What you call a version, I call a stack. No problem. It's your software!