I have a NAS at home which I access both as AFP/SMB shares and thru ssh/rsync.  Now, I'd like to keep on using the shares as before, i.e., browsable via AFP/SMB with conventional file names.  Ideally, I'd also like to git-annex some NAS shares, preferably, in direct mode. However, it seems out of the question to install git-annex on the NAS (hopefully, I'm wrong about this in the long run).

Two **non-special remote setups** would be:

1. Mount the share and turn it into a direct mode git annex repo.  Does anybody have experience with this?  I'd suspect this to be very inefficient due to the use of all the files in .git over AFP/SMB.  Configuration as a WORM backend seems to be advised? (Edit: Well, I just tried this and 'git annex init' failed as described in this [forum post](http://git-annex.branchable.com/forum/Can__39__t_init_git_annex/).  So AFP/SMB seem to be non-starters. :-(  Furthermore, AFP/SMB are immediately detected as crippled and set to direct mode automatically.)
2. Same as 1. but with a local GIT_DIR.  This should work by having .git on the NAS link to the local GIT_DIR.

Alternatively, I could treat my NAS as a [**web special remote**](http://git-annex.branchable.com/tips/using_the_web_as_a_special_remote/).  Some URL schemes come to mind:

* **file:**  This would benefit from some wish list items ([recursive directory remote setup/addurl](http://git-annex.branchable.com/todo/wishlist:_recursive_directory_remote_setup__47__addurl/)).
* **rsync:** AFAIK not implemented (yet?) as an option for web special remotes.
* **sftp:** (Might also include ssh access.)

The problem is that the "web semantics" don't really work in my use case:

* Files might change/move on the NAS.
* I'd like changes (e.g., renamed files) in my local repo to propagate to the NAS.  Currently, git-annex would use git push for this purpose IIUC, however that's not available on the NAS...
* the web semantics seem to imply that there is exactly one "web" repository (and the URL is fixed)

All of these indicate a mismatch between my use case and web special remotes.

Hence my question: **Would something like a "direct special remote" make sense?**

As a starting point I'd look at a setup similar to 2. above, i.e., a remote "working copy" with local GIT_DIR.  Except that instead of a whole local .git directory a branch in an existing .git dir might be more appropriate...

--Chris
