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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

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

Reply via email to