From e11c3246054b13df4328c619b6f8668539626701 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Joey Hess Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2019 11:31:56 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] followup; correct misleading comment --- ...ment_2_9f22f7f14fab759caa1ddecda435311c._comment | 13 +++++++++++++ ...ment_8_0fa68d584ee7f6b5c9058fba7e911a11._comment | 2 +- 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) create mode 100644 doc/forum/Using_hashdirlower_layout_for_S3_special_remote/comment_2_9f22f7f14fab759caa1ddecda435311c._comment diff --git a/doc/forum/Using_hashdirlower_layout_for_S3_special_remote/comment_2_9f22f7f14fab759caa1ddecda435311c._comment b/doc/forum/Using_hashdirlower_layout_for_S3_special_remote/comment_2_9f22f7f14fab759caa1ddecda435311c._comment new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..4abb0ddaeb --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/forum/Using_hashdirlower_layout_for_S3_special_remote/comment_2_9f22f7f14fab759caa1ddecda435311c._comment @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +[[!comment format=mdwn + username="joey" + subject="""comment 2""" + date="2019-09-05T15:29:57Z" + content=""" +That comment was just bad wording or possibly I conflated S3 with how other +remotes that do use hash directories work. I've corrected the comment. + +According to Amazon's documentation, S3 does not have a concept of +directories; "foo/bar" and "foo_bar" and "foo\\bar" are all just opaque +strings as far as it's concerned. So I don't see any point in using hash +directories with S3. +"""]] diff --git a/doc/special_remotes/S3/comment_8_0fa68d584ee7f6b5c9058fba7e911a11._comment b/doc/special_remotes/S3/comment_8_0fa68d584ee7f6b5c9058fba7e911a11._comment index 6997719d17..9212ca13f3 100644 --- a/doc/special_remotes/S3/comment_8_0fa68d584ee7f6b5c9058fba7e911a11._comment +++ b/doc/special_remotes/S3/comment_8_0fa68d584ee7f6b5c9058fba7e911a11._comment @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ subject="comment 8" date="2013-01-20T20:37:09Z" content=""" -If encryption is not used, the files are stored in S3 as-is, and can be accessed directly. They are stored in a hashed directory structure with the names of their key used, rather than the original filename. To get back to the original filename, a copy of the git repo would also be needed. +If encryption is not used, the files are stored in S3 as-is, and can be accessed directly. The S3 bucket contains object named using the git-annex key, rather than the original filename. To get back to the original filename, a copy of the git repo would also be needed. With encryption, you need the gpg key used in the encryption, or, for shared encryption, a symmetric key which is stored in the git repo.