From 38190c6ca2c17d2e322664031947b8474966bebb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Joey Hess Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2018 13:28:11 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] response --- ..._c93895a509ab4e458043450bccf930dc._comment | 23 +++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/tips/local_caching_of_annexed_files/comment_10_c93895a509ab4e458043450bccf930dc._comment diff --git a/doc/tips/local_caching_of_annexed_files/comment_10_c93895a509ab4e458043450bccf930dc._comment b/doc/tips/local_caching_of_annexed_files/comment_10_c93895a509ab4e458043450bccf930dc._comment new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..68143ccc42 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/tips/local_caching_of_annexed_files/comment_10_c93895a509ab4e458043450bccf930dc._comment @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ +[[!comment format=mdwn + username="joey" + subject="""comment 10""" + date="2018-08-03T17:18:04Z" + content=""" +I fear that preventing merging of branches fetched from the cache remote +in git-annex would be a game of whack-a-mole. There are just too many +ways the user could bypass such protections. Including, for example, +configuring git to fetch from cache to origin/ tracking branches. + +I remember at some point discussing isolating repos from one-another so +that data from one repo can't leak across a boundary to another repo, while +still having it be a remote, and it was similarly just not tractable. Can't +seem to find the thread, but it's basically the same problem. + +If you do accidentially merge the git-annex branch from a cache remote, +you can always make it dead and use git-annex forget --drop-dead. + +If you really want to avoid any possibility of git fetching from the caching +remote, make it a directory special remote! But, there is not currently +any way to make annex.hardlink work for directory special remotes, so it +will be less efficient. +"""]]