From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kyle Meyer Subject: Re: Next steps for the GWL In-Reply-To: <87h892jw4r.fsf@mdc-berlin.de> References: <87a7f5l6e1.fsf@mdc-berlin.de> <8736knieo3.fsf@kyleam.com> <87v9xjja6b.fsf@mdc-berlin.de> <87o93apx9w.fsf@kyleam.com> <87h892jw4r.fsf@mdc-berlin.de> Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2019 00:11:21 -0400 Message-ID: <87lfyeox06.fsf@kyleam.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: Ricardo Wurmus Cc: gwl-devel@gnu.org List-ID: Ricardo Wurmus writes: > Kyle Meyer writes: > >> Ricardo Wurmus writes: >> >>>> One of the things I'd love to do >>>> with GWL is to make it play well with git-annex, something that would >>>> almost certainly be too specific for GWL itself. >> >> [...] >> >>> I wonder what the protocol should look like. Should a workflow >>> explicitly request a =E2=80=9Cgit annex=E2=80=9D file or should it be u= p to the person >>> running the workflow, i.e. when =E2=80=9Cgit annex=E2=80=9D has been co= nfigured to be >>> the cache backend it would simply look up the declared input/output >>> files there. >> >> The latter is what I had in mind. One benefit I see of leaving it up to >> the configured backend is that it makes it easier to share a workflow >> with someone that doesn't have/want the requirements for a particular >> backend. > > I agree, this would be convenient. > I=E2=80=99m not familiar with git annex. Would you be interested in draf= ting > this feature, e.g. by writing a patch or specifying how it should work > in detail? Sure, I'll work on putting a patch together so there's something more concrete to discuss.