From 0e93af4e9c14f1c8200984a6e302d160eed1eccc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: yarikoptic Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2018 21:51:22 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Added a comment: no generic solution is possible in indirect mode BUT still would be nice to have a 99% solution --- ...comment_7_3cc6eeb8eae14ac3727b1e420f96ee7d._comment | 10 ++++++++++ 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/bugs/assistant_doesn__39__t_sync_file_permissions/comment_7_3cc6eeb8eae14ac3727b1e420f96ee7d._comment diff --git a/doc/bugs/assistant_doesn__39__t_sync_file_permissions/comment_7_3cc6eeb8eae14ac3727b1e420f96ee7d._comment b/doc/bugs/assistant_doesn__39__t_sync_file_permissions/comment_7_3cc6eeb8eae14ac3727b1e420f96ee7d._comment new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..8b62a7d93c --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/bugs/assistant_doesn__39__t_sync_file_permissions/comment_7_3cc6eeb8eae14ac3727b1e420f96ee7d._comment @@ -0,0 +1,10 @@ +[[!comment format=mdwn + username="yarikoptic" + avatar="http://cdn.libravatar.org/avatar/f11e9c84cb18d26a1748c33b48c924b4" + subject="no generic solution is possible in indirect mode BUT still would be nice to have a 99% solution" + date="2018-08-03T21:51:22Z" + content=""" +just ran into this as well, so was looking around. +I am afraid that in indirect mode no \"proper\" solution is possible since for the same content (git-annex key) there could originally be multiple files with different permissions -- e.g. one executable and one not. +**BUT** IMHO even though no proper solution possible, if would indeed be very useful to have it resolved to work for 99% of cases, where such collisions aren't likely and a \"union\" of executable bit across present files in the repo could be used (so if one is executable, all others with the same content are as well). Since git annex by default inherits/propagates metadata changes across \"editions\" of the files it would already be handy even if e.g. executable shell scripts gets modified which is kinda a neat side effect ;-) +"""]] From c3f366448a12eafce681b6f1cedeaf764f9f7014 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: yarikoptic Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2018 03:20:48 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] initial expression of the desire --- ...__39___in_--json-progress_record_for_addurl.mdwn | 13 +++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/todo/provide___39__file__39___in_--json-progress_record_for_addurl.mdwn diff --git a/doc/todo/provide___39__file__39___in_--json-progress_record_for_addurl.mdwn b/doc/todo/provide___39__file__39___in_--json-progress_record_for_addurl.mdwn new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..a68af9564e --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/todo/provide___39__file__39___in_--json-progress_record_for_addurl.mdwn @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +Would it be sensibly easy to provide "file" field in progress json records for addurl? I guess in any usecase (provided or deduced from url filename) it should be known at that stage. +ATM it is just "null" and I guess (didn't try ATM) it would be impossible to associate particular progress reports with corresponding files in the `--batch -J` mode + +[[!format sh """ +$> git annex addurl --file bigone --json --json-progress https://s3.amazonaws.com/fcp-indi/data/Projects/ABIDE_Initiative/Outputs/freesurfer/5.1/UCLA_1_0051257/mri/T1.mgz +{"byte-progress":259645,"action":{"command":"addurl","file":null},"total-size":2459677,"percent-progress":"10.56%"} +{"byte-progress":1304125,"action":{"command":"addurl","file":null},"total-size":2459677,"percent-progress":"53.02%"} +{"command":"addurl","note":"to bigone","success":true,"key":"MD5E-s2459677--ad5bf54490212c7e9d88f15e16c4b0c1","file":"bigone"} +"""]] + +Thanks in advance + +[[!meta author=yoh]]