1 files changed, 24 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/forum/Direct_special_remotes.mdwn b/doc/forum/Direct_special_remotes.mdwn
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..b2c93653e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/forum/Direct_special_remotes.mdwn
@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+I have a NAS at home which I access both as AFP/SMB shares and thru ssh/rsync.  Now, I'd like to keep on using the shares as before, i.e., browsable via AFP/SMB with conventional file names.  Ideally, I'd also like to git-annex some NAS shares, preferably, in direct mode. However, it seems out of the question to install git-annex on the NAS (hopefully, I'm wrong about this in the long run).
+
+Two **non-special remote setups** would be:
+
+1. Mount the share and turn it into a direct mode git annex repo.  Does anybody have experience with this?  I'd suspect this to be very inefficient due to the use of all the files in .git over AFP/SMB.  Configuration as a WORM backend seems to be advised?
+2. Same as 1. but with a local GIT_DIR.  This should work by having .git on the NAS link to the local GIT_DIR.
+
+Alternatively, I could treat my NAS as a [**web special remote**](http://git-annex.branchable.com/tips/using_the_web_as_a_special_remote/).  Some URL schemes come to mind:
+
+* **file:**  This would benefit from some wish list items ([recursive directory remote setup/addurl](http://git-annex.branchable.com/todo/wishlist:_recursive_directory_remote_setup__47__addurl/)).
+* **rsync:** AFAIK not implemented (yet?) as an option for web special remotes.
+* **sftp:** (Might also include ssh access.)
+
+The problem is that the "web semantics" don't really work in my use case:
+
+* Files might change/move on the NAS.
+* I'd like changes (e.g., renamed files) in my local repo to propagate to the NAS.  Currently, git-annex would use git push for this purpose IIUC, however that's not available on the NAS...
+* the web semantics seem to imply that there is exactly one "web" repository (and the URL is fixed)
+
+All of these indicate a mismatch between my use case and web special remotes.
+
+Hence my question: **Would something like a "direct special remote" make sense?**
+
+As a starting point I'd look at a setup similar to 2. above, i.e., a remote "working copy" with local GIT_DIR.  Except that instead of a whole local .git directory a branch in an existing .git dir might be more appropriate...