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
vcs-home@lists.madduck.net
http://lists.madduck.net/listinfo/vcs-home

Reply via email to