Since we're talking about it, I'd rather see "svnadmin obliterate" rather
than "svn obliterate".
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Palmer" <scott.palmer@2connected.org>
To: "subversion Users" <users@subversion.tigris.org>
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 8:53 PM
Subject: Re: Is anyone working on "svn obliterate"?
>
> On Jan 31, 2005, at 9:46 PM, David Ripton wrote:
>
> > Examples I've seen, that justify obliteration rather than just deleting
> > from HEAD:
> >
> > 1. Config file with embedded password that can't quickly be changed
> > 2. Private key file that can't quickly be changed
> > 3. Copyright-violating artwork
> > 4. Trade-secret document in a public repository
> >
>
> If your repository isn't public I doubt #3 is a real issue. But the
> rest certainly make sense. Then there is also the very simple:
>
> 5. somebody made a mistake that takes tons of space.
>
> You shouldn't have to live with that for the rest of time. With extra
> tapes needed for backups and having to run out and upgrade disks on
> your servers a couple years ahead of schedule, etc. The 'undo' feature
> is a widely used feature of many programs. :) Subversion doesn't really
> have one... it moves forward only. I know you can 'fake it' with a
> reverse merge or something similar.. but that is like using white-out
> instead of getting a fresh sheet of paper... sometimes it's sloppier.
>
>
> Scott
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Feb 1 05:13:19 2005