From bfdbf595364413202e1893aecb05baad50ff4bcb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Joey Hess Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2022 13:23:33 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] close as not a bug --- ...525_cannot_probe_for_untrusted_remote_key.mdwn | 1 + ...nt_1_e35bef8fb0b9a40938022c43c87df597._comment | 15 +++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/bugs/10.20220525_cannot_probe_for_untrusted_remote_key/comment_1_e35bef8fb0b9a40938022c43c87df597._comment diff --git a/doc/bugs/10.20220525_cannot_probe_for_untrusted_remote_key.mdwn b/doc/bugs/10.20220525_cannot_probe_for_untrusted_remote_key.mdwn index 2ecf1db6d0..499a732e69 100644 --- a/doc/bugs/10.20220525_cannot_probe_for_untrusted_remote_key.mdwn +++ b/doc/bugs/10.20220525_cannot_probe_for_untrusted_remote_key.mdwn @@ -23,3 +23,4 @@ That however, is substantially more complex than looking at the exit code -- giv 99.9% are just splendid. Wondering here whether this particular consequence of the change was intentional and avoidable? +> [[notabug|done]] --[[Joey]] diff --git a/doc/bugs/10.20220525_cannot_probe_for_untrusted_remote_key/comment_1_e35bef8fb0b9a40938022c43c87df597._comment b/doc/bugs/10.20220525_cannot_probe_for_untrusted_remote_key/comment_1_e35bef8fb0b9a40938022c43c87df597._comment new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..5df59eb22b --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/bugs/10.20220525_cannot_probe_for_untrusted_remote_key/comment_1_e35bef8fb0b9a40938022c43c87df597._comment @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ +[[!comment format=mdwn + username="joey" + subject="""comment 1""" + date="2022-06-09T17:19:07Z" + content=""" +That was a fix for an old reversion, so trying to use fsck for that would +have also failed before 8.20201129. + +Fsck is not the right tool for the job. Fscking can fail for any of a +variety of reasons, including probably reasons that have not been thought +of or implemented yet, so taking failure to mean only one possible thing is +doomed. + +A better tool exists: `git-annex checkpresentkey` +"""]]