[[!comment format=mdwn
 username="https://me.yahoo.com/a/EbvxpTI_xP9Aod7Mg4cwGhgjrCrdM5s-#7c0f4"
 subject="WHEREIS -- is it better to just report failure to avoid duplicates?"
 date="2015-08-26T14:22:49Z"
 content="""
I wonder how should I utilize this new API (WHEREIS) in my case:  it seems just to lead to duplication of whereis information in my case of a special remote to support extracting of content from archives. If I make it to reply with the same url (which is not \"public\" per se, i.e. can't be used by annex directly) I just get it duplicated:

    $> git annex whereis simple.txt
    whereis simple.txt (1 copy) 
      	82025765-5cac-4571-91ed-637620ec6fc7 -- [annexed-archives]
    
      annexed-archives: dl+archive:SHA256E-s173--5df2eeab61ea7d6479533d4e6b07c6bcfae46e040cad8cb1fc579f9f18c90790.tar.gz/a/d/%20%22%27%3Ba%26b%26cd%20%60%7C%20
      annexed-archives: dl+archive:SHA256E-s173--5df2eeab61ea7d6479533d4e6b07c6bcfae46e040cad8cb1fc579f9f18c90790.tar.gz/a/d/%20%22%27%3Ba%26b%26cd%20%60%7C%20
    ok

if I \"explain\" it a bit, also somewhat duplicate:

    annexed-archives: file a/d/%20%22%27%3Ba%26b%26cd%20%60%7C%20 within archive SHA256E-s173--5df2eeab61ea7d6479533d4e6b07c6bcfae46e040cad8cb1fc579f9f18c90790.tar.gz
    annexed-archives: dl+archive:SHA256E-s173--5df2eeab61ea7d6479533d4e6b07c6bcfae46e040cad8cb1fc579f9f18c90790.tar.gz/a/d/%20%22%27%3Ba%26b%26cd%20%60%7C%20

But if I just reply with \"WHEREIS-FAILURE\" it becomes more sensible (no duplicates), but I feel that then better documentation for this feature get adjusted to describe
that it is only to complement information already known to annex, and not really to \"provide any information about ways to access the content of a key stored in it\".  Or have I missed the point? ;)
"""]]