>>>>> "Timothy" == Timothy Brownawell <Timothy> writes:
Timothy> You don't identify the key by a human-readable Timothy> name. Instead, you identify it by its hash, and there's a Timothy> users/ section in the policy tree that maps the hash to Timothy> something human-readable for UI purposes. So you rename Timothy> the lost key, and add the new one (maybe even with the Timothy> same name). Unfortunately, as currently implemented, get_netsync_read_permitted and get_netsync_write_permitted (and probably others), use the human-readable name, not the hash. In fact, according to the documentation, what you describe cannot happen, as it is not possible to have more then one key share the same human readable name: "Note that the identity value is a key ID (such as "[EMAIL PROTECTED]") but will correspond to a unique key fingerprint (hash) in your database. Monotone will not permit two keys in your database to have the same ID. Make sure you confirm the key fingerprints of each key in your database, as key ID strings are "convenience names", not security tokens." What you say does sound to me to be like the right solution. -- Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ Monotone-devel mailing list Monotone-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel