On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 21:21, Joey Hess <j...@kitenet.net> 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 why it would be worth the > setup bother, compared with having a separate repository for bup. It doubles the amount of disk space used. As the server I built & hosted for this uses ZFS with RAIDz2 & copies=2, I guess I can just run with copies=1 and have two repos. Sprinkle some auto-commit hooks on top and things should work. Still, I still think it would be cleaner to have a bup remote which is also the annex origin. On thinking more about this: I could have a remote bare repo as origin, but never copy any files to it. Another special remote for bup to store data in. But how to fsck this beast? A third, host-local, non-bare annex repo to run fsck from(we are talking hundreds of GB)? Or would an annex fsck from a different host run fsck on the bup host? Or can't I fsck bup remotes at all? Thanks, Richard PS: Out of interest: How weird is my use case? Are others doing similar things, as well? _______________________________________________ vcs-home mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.madduck.net/listinfo/vcs-home