Hi, On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 05:31:45PM +0200, Mathieu Lonjaret wrote: > what you're witnessing is not specific to files. Permanodes are the > live objects in Perkeep. Anything that is not somehow connected to a > permanode is considered like an orphan if you will. In fact, it would > eventually maybe get garbage collected (if we had such a thing as a > working GC). So when you upload a file, but you don't connect it (in > any way) to a permanode, it's as if this file was dead to the system > (even though in practice you can still find it with the right query, > as you found out).
It's all starting to make sense ;-) Does that also mean that old file versions could in theory get garbage collected? Or are they indirectly connected to a permanode via claims that set the content of said permanode and are thus safe from being removed? > That is why the "filename" search predicate translates into a search > query for a _permanode_ that links to the requested file. So my simple explicit search query wasn't actually what I should be doing, right? I shouldn't be searching for any schema blob with the filename in question but for permanodes that "point" to a schema blob with that filename. Is that correct? Chris -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Perkeep" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
