This commit is contained in:
Joey Hess 2025-03-17 16:02:02 -04:00
parent d74d2d5d91
commit 1b23823787
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG key ID: DB12DB0FF05F8F38

View file

@ -18,8 +18,15 @@ compute special remote. --[[Joey]]
* would be nice to have a way to see what computations are used by a * would be nice to have a way to see what computations are used by a
compute remote for a file. Put it in `whereis` output? But it's not an compute remote for a file. Put it in `whereis` output? But it's not an
url. Maybe a separate command? That would also allow querying for eg, url. Maybe a separate command? That would also allow querying for eg,
what files are inputs for another file. Or it could be exposed in the what files are inputs for another file.
Remote interface, and made into a file matching option.
Or it could be exposed in the
Remote interface, and made into a file matching option:
git-annex find --inputof=foo
But that would require running expensive find over the whole tree,
and wouldn't work if the input file is no longer in the tree.
* allow git-annex enableremote with program= explicitly specified, * allow git-annex enableremote with program= explicitly specified,
without checking annex.security.allowed-compute-programs without checking annex.security.allowed-compute-programs
@ -43,3 +50,15 @@ compute special remote. --[[Joey]]
Or it could build a DAG and traverse it, but building a DAG of a large Or it could build a DAG and traverse it, but building a DAG of a large
directory tree has its own problems. directory tree has its own problems.
* Should checkPresent check that each input file is also present in some
(non-dead) repo?
Currently it only checks if compute state is recorded. The problem
this additional checking would solve is if an input file gets lost,
then a computation cannot be run again.
Should it be an active check against existing remotes, or a
passive check? An active check certainly makes sense if the input
file is itself present in a compute repo, either the same one or a
different one. Otherwise, a passive check seems enough.