Richard Hartmann wrote: > 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.
No, there's no reason to have git-annex send any files to the origin repository if you're storing them on the bup special remote. > 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? git-annex does not support fscking special remotes at all, content has to be copied from them before it can be checked. However, bup repositories should be able to be checked with regular git fsck. -- see shy jo
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ vcs-home mailing list email@example.com http://lists.madduck.net/listinfo/vcs-home