Richard Hartmann wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 21:21, Joey Hess wrote:
>
> > It would be very weird to have a bup repository that is *not* bare.
>
> True; what I meant was the merged bup & annex, indeed.
>
> > As I said, it's probably possible to use a branch of the same repository
> > for b
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 21:21, Joey Hess wrote:
> It would be very weird to have a bup repository that is *not* bare.
True; what I meant was the merged bup & annex, indeed.
> As I said, it's probably possible to use a branch of the same repository
> for bup as for git-annex, but I'm not sure wh
Richard Hartmann wrote:
> The problem is that, afaik, I can't have it as a bare special remote.
It would be very weird to have a bup repository that is *not* bare.
> The use case is that I built & hosted a server for backups and backups
> only. As origin, it's used to sync git state between all o
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 19:04, Joey Hess wrote:
>> Sounds good. Would that cover the other noted limitations, as well?
>
> Unsure what you mean.
* I can not run git annex fsck (this might be addressed by Joey in code)
* Also, bare git annex repos only know about themselves and not other
repos. A
Richard Hartmann wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 18:31, Joey Hess wrote:
>
> > I think this could be fixed fairly easily using the existing code to
> > list the keys in a non-checked out git branch.
>
> Sounds good. Would that cover the other noted limitations, as well?
Unsure what you mean.
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 18:31, Joey Hess wrote:
> I think this could be fixed fairly easily using the existing code to
> list the keys in a non-checked out git branch.
Sounds good. Would that cover the other noted limitations, as well?
> It will defeat git-annex's location tracking so could le
Richard Hartmann wrote:
> * git annex status does not know about the global annex keys & size
I think this could be fixed fairly easily using the existing code to
list the keys in a non-checked out git branch.
> One thing I have been pondering is to create a local clone of the bare
> repo and sof
Also, bare git annex repos only know about themselves and not other
repos. Again, this is somewhat expected, but still.
The more I think about it, the more do I think that a combination of
object stores of bare & non-bare repos makes sense. Only need to
figure out the cleanest way to meld bup into
