close as not a bug

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 2ecf1db6d0cbc24fca07fb403af871d237cde983..499a732e69b201d2cd3aff3af954eec9b025008f 100644 (file)
--- 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 (file)
index 0000000..5df59eb
--- /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`
+"""]]