From 2f5e1ae7a93a17291acfd2abee49dedd8cf528dd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Joey Hess Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 12:51:19 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] comment --- ...t_50_4485e72f90f46beef3f216ffab82386e._comment | 15 +++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/special_remotes/comment_50_4485e72f90f46beef3f216ffab82386e._comment diff --git a/doc/special_remotes/comment_50_4485e72f90f46beef3f216ffab82386e._comment b/doc/special_remotes/comment_50_4485e72f90f46beef3f216ffab82386e._comment new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..9c391224d5 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/special_remotes/comment_50_4485e72f90f46beef3f216ffab82386e._comment @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +[[!comment format=mdwn + username="joey" + subject="""comment 50""" + date="2021-03-08T16:46:57Z" + content=""" +It would be possible for initremote to allow reusing a name that is used +for an old remote that has been marked as dead. The reason that is not +allowed, I think, is that there is some footgun potential: If the old +remote somehow was lost and then was found, it would either be hard to unmark +it as dead, or if that was done, there would be 2 remotes with the same +name, which would complicate using enableremote. + +So it seems best to rename the old one before creating the new one. +That way it's got a unique name still. +"""]]