Robert White wrote: > Howdy all, > > I don't know who decided that .monotone/keys was a good idea but it is > a DISASTER for me. > > For various reasons It is desirable to use the same real world > identity, q.v. [EMAIL PROTECTED], in several different databases with > different keys behind them for each database. This is hugely > unworkable with one default keystore. This was not previously a problem. > [...] > If you don't believe in these use cases, consider contractors who may > need to keep work separate for different employers but will want to > use their one business email address for all their business;
OK, using (the same) e-mail addresses in different keys may pose additional hurdles, but why using e-mail addresses in the first place? There is nothing, in monotone, forcing IDs to be e-mail addresses, it's just an habit, a suggestion of the tutorial… should it be stated more explicitly that's just a suggestion and no check is done in that regard and that really nowhere a keyid is assumed to be a real e-mail address? In your case, being forced to use a different key for each project, I'd personally use "key_<projectName>" or something in the sort, and probably a bash alias to automatically -k with the correct one. Also, I think an all-caps *HARMFUL* Subject is something (quite) a bit stronger than "uh, you inadvertently broke my use-case"… I'm not saying this isn't a problem for you, only that *HARMFUL* sounds to me better suited for a big security or data-loss problem… but maybe it's just me =) -- Lapo Luchini - http://lapo.it/ “Real Programmers always confuse Christmas and Halloween because Oct31 == Dec25.” (Andrew Rutherford) _______________________________________________ Monotone-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
