Dvc: config: should `cache.protected` be hidden and automatic?

[jorgeorpinel]

Could/Should the cache.protected mode be hidden to the user, enabled automatically for cache.type hardlink or symlink, and disabled otherwise?

Just wondering what's the value of having the user manually configure something that is always required for those cache link types.

[efiop]

There was a debate over whether or not we should stay with reflink,hardlink,symlink,copy with protected enabled by default or if we should switch to reflink,copy by default. Currently we've chosen the latter one, which eliminates the need for protected mode being enabled by default for those links. And hardlink,symlink are now kinda an "advanced" mode, in which user can choose to either enable protected mode or keep it disabled. We should definitely make it enabled by default, so the risk of corrupting your cache is lower. Thanks for the heads up!

[jorgeorpinel]

So just to confirm, do you agree that cache.protected should be enabled automatically when the cache.type in use is hardlink or symlink, and disabled automatically when it changes to reflink or copy? And that it would then be unnecessary to even expose cache.protected for the user to set manually with dvc config? Thanks

[efiop]

@jorgeorpinel I agree with everything except

And that it would then be unnecessary to even expose cache.protected for the user to set manually with dvc config?

that makes me think whether or not that config option could be useful or not any longer... Seems like it is indeed useless. Might need to give it a final thought before removing it.

[ghost]

What's the conclusion on this one? @iterative/engineering

I'd like to remove it, indeed

[jorgeorpinel]

So far all in favor, I think. ✋

[shcheklein]

👍