Richard Hartmann wrote: > 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?
Unsure what you mean. > > > 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. It's still not safe. Consider A and B are symlinked and B is untrusted. Now you run git annex drop in B. It checks that A has a copy of a file.. good, it does. So it deletes a file... from both. > It would avoid having to have the data twice. Oh, I thought you meant only storing the bup data in a separate branch in the same repository. You can have a bup special remote and store your data there but it then has to be accessed as a special remote, not as a regular bare remote. -- see shy jo
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ vcs-home mailing list email@example.com http://lists.madduck.net/listinfo/vcs-home