From 778e1036326c49dec390f5f155e2d403b1f5de6b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "gb@4a49bb1afcf3d183bba8f07297b0395808768c6c" Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2020 14:46:21 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] --- .../Hardlinks_instead_of_symlinks_in_locked+thin_mode.mdwn | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/doc/forum/Hardlinks_instead_of_symlinks_in_locked+thin_mode.mdwn b/doc/forum/Hardlinks_instead_of_symlinks_in_locked+thin_mode.mdwn index d7601292f9..6eb04ceb23 100644 --- a/doc/forum/Hardlinks_instead_of_symlinks_in_locked+thin_mode.mdwn +++ b/doc/forum/Hardlinks_instead_of_symlinks_in_locked+thin_mode.mdwn @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ -Would it be possible to make `thin` work in locked mode? In other words, could locked mode use **hardlinks** instead symlinks then `thin` is set? +Would it be possible to make `thin` work in locked mode? In other words, could locked mode use **hardlinks** instead of symlinks then `thin` is set? -Such a combined mode would have all the benefits of locked mode (protection, easy-to-stop missing files) and of direct mode (no duplication of files). It would also (partially) solve the problems discussed in [[devblog/day_601__v7_default/]] and [[todo/symlinks_for_not-present_unlocked_files/]]. +Such a combined mode would have all the benefits of locked mode (protection, easy-to-spot missing files) and of direct mode (no duplication of files). It would also (partially) solve the problems discussed in [[devblog/day_601__v7_default/]] and [[todo/symlinks_for_not-present_unlocked_files/]]. Here is an example of how this could work from the user prospective: