From 9715f3132c5fa69e8edf2bc7c41c1a4e9c0602be Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: gernot Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 11:20:06 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Added a comment --- ...t_2_eec848fcf3979c03cbff2b7407c75a7a._comment | 16 ++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/forum/wishlist:_define_remotes_that_must_have_all_files/comment_2_eec848fcf3979c03cbff2b7407c75a7a._comment diff --git a/doc/forum/wishlist:_define_remotes_that_must_have_all_files/comment_2_eec848fcf3979c03cbff2b7407c75a7a._comment b/doc/forum/wishlist:_define_remotes_that_must_have_all_files/comment_2_eec848fcf3979c03cbff2b7407c75a7a._comment new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..1855cdda01 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/forum/wishlist:_define_remotes_that_must_have_all_files/comment_2_eec848fcf3979c03cbff2b7407c75a7a._comment @@ -0,0 +1,16 @@ +[[!comment format=mdwn + username="gernot" + ip="87.79.209.169" + subject="comment 2" + date="2011-04-24T11:20:05Z" + content=""" +Right, I have thought about untrusting all but a few remotes to achieve +something similar before and I'm sure it would kind of work. It would be more +of an ugly workaround, however, because I would have to untrust remotes that +are, in reality, at least semi-trusted. That's why an extra option/attribute +for that kind of purpose/remote would be nice. + +Obviously I didn't see the scalability problem though. Good Point. Maybe I can +achieve the same thing by writing a log parsing script for myself? + +"""]]