Merge branch 'master' of ssh://git-annex.branchable.com

This commit is contained in:
Joey Hess 2013-01-28 16:08:28 +11:00
commit 9bd00e8c2a
3 changed files with 23 additions and 1 deletions

View file

@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ locally paired systems, and remote servers with rsync.
Help me prioritize my work: What special remote would you most like
to use with the git-annex assistant?
[[!poll open=yes 15 "Amazon S3 (done)" 12 "Amazon Glacier (done)" 9 "Box.com (done)" 67 "My phone (or MP3 player)" 18 "Tahoe-LAFS" 6 "OpenStack SWIFT" 25 "Google Drive"]]
[[!poll open=yes 15 "Amazon S3 (done)" 12 "Amazon Glacier (done)" 9 "Box.com (done)" 68 "My phone (or MP3 player)" 18 "Tahoe-LAFS" 6 "OpenStack SWIFT" 25 "Google Drive"]]
This poll is ordered with the options I consider easiest to build
listed first. Mostly because git-annex already supports them and they

View file

@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
so git annex migrate can switch a file from using one backend to the other.
I've done that with a bunch of files.
The old files should become "unused" right? But they don't seem to be. "git annex unused" still shows me only 2 unused files, and I've just migrated dozens of files from SHA256 to SHA256E.
Is it possible they're still "used" by other repos? I have two other repos, one reached by SSH and one on a USB drive. Neither one of them is "bare." So maybe those files are still used by the "master" branches there, I thought... I went over and did "git annex sync" on each. Still my newly migrated files are not showing up as "unused."
I'm worried that my repo is going to bloat with unused files with the SHA256 backend, which mysteriously do not show up as "unused" in git annex unused, if I migrate any more.
any ideas what piece of the puzzle I could be missing here?

View file

@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
[[!comment format=mdwn
username="http://edheil.wordpress.com/"
ip="99.54.57.201"
subject="comment 1"
date="2013-01-28T03:20:38Z"
content="""
Just noticed this -- http://git-annex.branchable.com/bugs/git_annex_migrate_leaves_old_backend_versions_around/
so I don't need to worry about disk space bloat; they're all just hardlinks. That's cool. Still would be nice to know why they don't show up as \"unused.\" But not as important.
"""]]