comment
authorJoey Hess <joeyh@joeyh.name>
Mon, 7 Jun 2021 17:28:36 +0000 (13:28 -0400)
committerJoey Hess <joeyh@joeyh.name>
Mon, 7 Jun 2021 17:28:36 +0000 (13:28 -0400)
doc/todo/Avoid_lengthy___34__Scanning_for_unlocked_files_...__34__/comment_19_b34a9cf4114ed943fe4ba2de78eb0bbc._comment [new file with mode: 0644]

diff --git a/doc/todo/Avoid_lengthy___34__Scanning_for_unlocked_files_...__34__/comment_19_b34a9cf4114ed943fe4ba2de78eb0bbc._comment b/doc/todo/Avoid_lengthy___34__Scanning_for_unlocked_files_...__34__/comment_19_b34a9cf4114ed943fe4ba2de78eb0bbc._comment
new file mode 100644 (file)
index 0000000..2f68e41
--- /dev/null
@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+[[!comment format=mdwn
+ username="joey"
+ subject="""comment 19"""
+ date="2021-06-07T17:07:26Z"
+ content="""
+It can't know if there are unlocked files without doing this scan.
+
+Except for when annex.supportunlocked=false, but then that config option
+would have the side effect of making git-annex *slower* at some point after
+init, with the situations where it does hard to enumerate and probably
+growing. This would be a hard behavior to explain to the user.
+
+And there are numerous other points than the ones you listed where
+git-annex accesses the keys db and would trigger a deferred scan. Eg, anytime
+it might need to update a pointer file. Eg, when `git annex get` is run. 
+Avoiding using the keys db when annex.supportunlocked=false in all such
+cases in order to avoid the scan would be effectively the same complexity
+as continuing to support v5 repos, which I've NAKed before.
+""]]