From 6f31bd47558e4f5d982286b5af7d341301e1cd2c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Joey Hess Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2022 12:39:07 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] comment --- ..._97fd65626991b1e8012e15595941d25d._comment | 24 +++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/forum/Unlocked_mode_without_data_also_under_.git__47__annex__63__/comment_5_97fd65626991b1e8012e15595941d25d._comment diff --git a/doc/forum/Unlocked_mode_without_data_also_under_.git__47__annex__63__/comment_5_97fd65626991b1e8012e15595941d25d._comment b/doc/forum/Unlocked_mode_without_data_also_under_.git__47__annex__63__/comment_5_97fd65626991b1e8012e15595941d25d._comment new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..a9c0c944f3 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/forum/Unlocked_mode_without_data_also_under_.git__47__annex__63__/comment_5_97fd65626991b1e8012e15595941d25d._comment @@ -0,0 +1,24 @@ +[[!comment format=mdwn + username="joey" + subject="""comment 5""" + date="2022-09-15T16:27:54Z" + content=""" +Ah, oops.. I was thinking about BTRFS.. + +However, getting back to the original motivation of jgoerzen to +request this, it seems to come down to making a hard link being seen as +"mucking with the source data". That seems like a very weak reason to make +such a very large change to git-annex, that would only be safe in a +small and poorly defined set of circumstances. + +And it would be a large change, because currently git-annex can broadly +assume that any time a .git/annex/objects/ file exists, the content +is present in the repository. Every place that makes that assumption +would need to instead check if any of the known work tree files that use +the object are populated with the content (or at least are not annex +pointer files). + +(jgoerzen also mentions timestamps, but git-annex preserves those +when ingesting files. Of course timestamp data is not recorded in the git +repository unless you use some other tool to do so.) +"""]]