On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 18:31, Joey Hess <j...@kitenet.net> 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 lead to data loss. Obviously, the non-bare repo would need to be untrusted. Assuming it's untrusted, is this save? Unless I can be _sure_ nothing will break, I am not sure if I want to try this just to see that I lost data. > I don't know why bup couldn't be used with a bare repository, but I am > unsure if trying to use bup in the same git repository as git-annex is > worth the potential complication. It would avoid having to have the data twice. Alternatively, with the SHA* backends, a mode could be introduced that never ever deletes objects. Combined with git's tracking of the softlinks, this would enable a time-back machine, of sorts. Richard -- Richard _______________________________________________ vcs-home mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.madduck.net/listinfo/vcs-home