comments

doc/forum/How_to_handle_cold_storage__63__/comment_1_ff49a65d4adaff3cf3902c2850227ea2._comment

@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
+[[!comment format=mdwn
+ username="joey"
+ subject="""comment 1"""
+ date="2022-06-28T16:08:38Z"
+ content="""
+This is what [[todo/do_not_count_trusted_repos_toward_mincopies]] is kind
+of about; setting a repo to trusted right now is a promise that you won't
+delete data from it, or will be careful when you do to sync that fact to
+everywhere. If that todo got implemented, you could set all the offline
+drives to trusted and git-annex drop would only need to verify 1 copy is
+present on an online drive.
+
+What I do right now is use trusted for cold storage and never drop
+anything from it except in cases where I want to get rid of all copies of
+some file.
+"""]]

doc/todo/do_not_count_trusted_repos_toward_mincopies/comment_2_058f521451ff38d2072af6c944143ab1._comment

@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+[[!comment format=mdwn
+ username="joey"
+ subject="""comment 2"""
+ date="2022-06-28T16:13:05Z"
+ content="""
+Perhaps it would be better to leave trusted working as it does now, and
+introduce a new intermediate trust level. It could be called eg, "offline".
+
+An offline repo would count toward numcopies when not available, but 
+would only count toward mincopies if it happened to be available at the
+time.
+
+It might then be that there's no real need for the less safe trusted,
+and users could be polled and it deprecated if so.
+
+(This might also be a good opportunity to improve the "semitrust" name,
+which would not make much sense if the list was untrust, semitrust,
+offline, trust. "normal" perhaps. Would need to still accept the old name
+for back-compat of course.)
+"""]]