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

Reply via email to