Adjust image editing naming schema

[ajlende]

Follow-up from #21024 (comment)

I'm not that fond of the naming schema. crop-21-41-35-20-rotate-180-crop-21-41-35-20-IMG_20190825_104317-scaled-300x225.jpg doesn't sound particularly good (compared to IMG_20190825_104317-scaled.jpg) and will easily exceed the max file name length allowed on some filesystems.

If we had a reference to the original, unedited, image stored and we did the batched edits from #22579, we could better calculate a name for images. The order of operations is still important, so rotate-90-scale-300x255 is different from scale-300x225-rotate-90.

I like that the current implementation includes the unique edits that were made to the image so an edit doesn't have to be made if there's already a matching filename. It also has the benefit of making it easy, when browsing your media, to know which edits have been made if you had a couple different crops and were comparing between the two. A more reliable way to test for sameness could be to store an checksum of the image and compare against that instead.

[Mamaduka]

@ajlende, is this issue still relevant? There's been no activity for a couple of years, and I wonder if we should close it.

[ajlende]

The enhancement is still valid since we do nothing to prevent someone from generating the same cropped image twice, but nobody is asking for this feature and there are no plans to implement it, so we may as well close for now.