[Monotone-devel] Re: forbid: a (nicer?) alternative to obliterate

[Lapo Luchini]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Paul Crowley wrote:
> Local forbid sounds to me like a good idea we can introduce right away.
> [...]
> Policy obliteration is going to be needed one day for sure, but it
> scares the crap out of me and I would like to wait until the policy
> stuff is very mature before even starting to work on the details.

Yes, that's for sure (and it scares the crap out of me too), that's
exactly why I specified to think about the two things separately 0=)

The first seems an useful command that can't possibly bring havoc (being
local), while the other was mainly speculation.

And moreover if a project really needs a "centralized" way to forbid
contents they can create an approximation of it using a script as part
of their build chain (first idea that comes to my mind: it fetches a
signed text file containing a list of forbidden versions, verify it
(using a GPG signature on it, or even leveraging on monotone signatures
themselves) and explicitly "cat" it to "mtn forbid address@hidden").

    Lapo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (FreeBSD)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
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=Bxns
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----