Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Branko Čibej wrote on Mon, 21 Apr 2008 at 08:46 +0200:
>> Karl Fogel wrote:
>>> Branko Čibej <brane_at_xbc.nu> writes:
>>>> Possibly ... but I'd really like to see a rock-solid argument for the
>>>> case where we'd want all traces of obliteration ... er,
>>>> obliterated. The whole idea smells wrong; after all, this is a version
>>>> control system, not a document shredding system.
>>> It's the legal case, I think.
>>> "No, Your Honor, we never made such a change on the date in question."
>>> "Oh, then why does your history have an empty revision on that date?"
>> And that's exactly what Dan Berlin said we shouldn't do, at the summit. There
>> was some talk about triple damages and suchlike. I don't think we should be in
>> the business of helping people break the law, eh? We might even be held liable
>> because of posts like this one.
> Yes, some people may use a new feature to break the law. Why is this
> an argument against that feature?
It's not. It's just not an argument /for/ the feature. I haven't heard a
good one yet.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-04-22 09:28:10 CEST