From 9c9c74d824fb9e18a3d8b83e462e297c8b654fe5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Joey Hess Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 08:14:55 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] update --- ..._6498a44801996cc5a412558c75f6157e._comment | 44 +++++++++++++------ 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/doc/forum/Hardlinks_instead_of_symlinks_in_locked+thin_mode/comment_2_6498a44801996cc5a412558c75f6157e._comment b/doc/forum/Hardlinks_instead_of_symlinks_in_locked+thin_mode/comment_2_6498a44801996cc5a412558c75f6157e._comment index cfc47f6707..a6abcf91de 100644 --- a/doc/forum/Hardlinks_instead_of_symlinks_in_locked+thin_mode/comment_2_6498a44801996cc5a412558c75f6157e._comment +++ b/doc/forum/Hardlinks_instead_of_symlinks_in_locked+thin_mode/comment_2_6498a44801996cc5a412558c75f6157e._comment @@ -7,22 +7,38 @@ > (protection, easy-to-spot missing files) and of direct mode (no > duplication of files). -Well, it does have the benefits of locked mode, but does it really have -additional benefits like direct mode did? +Well, it does have the benefits of locked mode, but does it really gain +back any benefits of direct mode? -Locked mode also does not involve duplication of files so that's kind of -irrelevant. +Direct mode didn't duplicate files. But locked mode with annex.thin doesn't +duplicate files either, except for on a filesystem that doesn't support +hard links. But this new mode relies on hard links too. -The actual benefit of direct mode was well, you could directly modify -files, in place. This mode would not have that benefit. annex.thin -also allows direct modification in place. +Direct mode allowed modifying files in place. But locked mode does too, +more safely than direct mode (except when using annex.thin, then it's the +same). -The only advantage that the old direct mode had, over the -current `git config annex.thin true; git-annex adjust --unlock`, is that -direct mode managed to not store two copies of content even on a filesystem -that does not support hard links. But this new mode relies on hard links. +Direct mode represented missing content as dangling symlinks (on +filesystems that support them). And this seems to be the only benefit +of direct mode that this new mode would gain back. -I do sort of like this idea, but I'm struggling to articulate why at the -moment, and so unsure how I'd even begin to document it. Any help -appreciated. :) +If the benefit of this new mode is only that, all that's really +needed is for the missing files to be represented as symlinks. Earlier I +said: + +> it could work though. Ie, have a git annex adjust mode that represents +> present files as unlocked, but with the write bits unset, and that +> represents missing files as symlinks. + +I now see that unsetting the write bit is not necessary to get the only +benefit of this new mode. Instead, the unlocked files can work just like +usual, being a copy of the content. And if the user doesn't want to store +two copies, they can enable annex.thin to get hardlinks, allowing in-place +modification. + +If it actually made sense to unset the write bit of unlocked +files, it could be a config independant from this new mode. But I don't +currently see any real benefit to doing that. As far as I can see, +this new mode + unset write bit does not have any advantages at all +compared with regular locked files. """]]