mirrors/git-annex
2
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages 1 Wiki Activity Actions

Added a comment: WHEREIS -- is it better to just report failure to avoid duplicates?

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
https://me.yahoo.com/a/EbvxpTI_xP9Aod7Mg4cwGhgjrCrdM5s-#7c0f4 2015-08-26 14:22:49 +00:00 committed by admin
parent ec6f03156c
commit 9d1eeab405
1 changed files with 23 additions and 0 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

23
doc/design/external_special_remote_protocol/comment_17_8dc7bbf485c9385a4b506e8b8fa934fe._comment Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
[[!comment format=mdwn
username="https://me.yahoo.com/a/EbvxpTI_xP9Aod7Mg4cwGhgjrCrdM5s-#7c0f4"
subject="WHEREIS -- is it better to just report failure to avoid duplicates?"
date="2015-08-26T14:22:49Z"
content="""
I wonder how should I utilize this new API (WHEREIS) in my case: it seems just to lead to duplication of whereis information in my case of a special remote to support extracting of content from archives. If I make it to reply with the same url (which is not \"public\" per se, i.e. can't be used by annex directly) I just get it duplicated:
$> git annex whereis simple.txt
whereis simple.txt (1 copy)
82025765-5cac-4571-91ed-637620ec6fc7 -- [annexed-archives]
annexed-archives: dl+archive:SHA256E-s173--5df2eeab61ea7d6479533d4e6b07c6bcfae46e040cad8cb1fc579f9f18c90790.tar.gz/a/d/%20%22%27%3Ba%26b%26cd%20%60%7C%20
annexed-archives: dl+archive:SHA256E-s173--5df2eeab61ea7d6479533d4e6b07c6bcfae46e040cad8cb1fc579f9f18c90790.tar.gz/a/d/%20%22%27%3Ba%26b%26cd%20%60%7C%20
ok
if I \"explain\" it a bit, also somewhat duplicate:
annexed-archives: file a/d/%20%22%27%3Ba%26b%26cd%20%60%7C%20 within archive SHA256E-s173--5df2eeab61ea7d6479533d4e6b07c6bcfae46e040cad8cb1fc579f9f18c90790.tar.gz
annexed-archives: dl+archive:SHA256E-s173--5df2eeab61ea7d6479533d4e6b07c6bcfae46e040cad8cb1fc579f9f18c90790.tar.gz/a/d/%20%22%27%3Ba%26b%26cd%20%60%7C%20
But if I just reply with \"WHEREIS-FAILURE\" it becomes more sensible (no duplicates), but I feel that then better documentation for this feature get adjusted to describe
that it is only to complement information already known to annex, and not really to \"provide any information about ways to access the content of a key stored in it\". Or have I missed the point? ;)
"""]]