On 10-04-13 22:12, Joey Hess wrote: > Wouter Verhelst wrote: >> This obviously doesn't work very well with git-annex. My first attempts >> of today caused some data loss, because git-annex adds the empty file to >> the annex and marks it as read-only; since the scanner software already >> performed a check on the file, it appears to assume it can be written to >> and ignores any write errors it may end up with. > > This wouldn't happen if you were using direct mode, which keeps the > files unlocked and editable once annexed.. Or well, it would be less > likely. IIRC git-annex still briefly locks down file permissions when > ingesting them in direct mode. I have been meaning to disable that since > it probably does not add any value.
AIUI, direct mode doesn't work so well with files that are given multiple names -- but I might be mistaken; I must admit I was a bit afraid of using it after reading the description in the manpage warning about possible data loss. [...] > I am having trouble coming up with a name for such an option; if I had a > good name for it I think I could implement it pretty quickly. annex.ignorefiles? That uses a similar naming scheme to "largefiles", and also refers to the fact that it implements something similar to ".gitignore". -- Copyshops should do vouchers. So that next time some bureaucracy requires you to mail a form in triplicate, you can mail it just once, add a voucher, and save on postage.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
