Re: Obliterate and auditability

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?"

Indeed, the mere presence of empty revisions is a sign that something
odd has happened, attracting attention precisely where the repository
owner may not want attention.

Now, we could say that it's not Subversion's business to help its users
lie. But we don't typically apply that standard to use cases -- we just
assume our users have good reasons for doing whatever it is they want to
do. We question intent only when we think there might be a technically
better way to achieve the same goal; if we were to question intent here,
it would be for different reasons.

> Heh. Just don't forget that you can fit more Vibrio cholerae into a
> thimble than worms in any reasonably-sized can.

   http://www.worldslargestthings.com/california/fruitcocktail.htm

(You might still be right, though.)

-Karl

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 08:28:57 CEST