Branko Èibej wrote on Mon, 21 Apr 2008 at 08:46 +0200:
> Karl Fogel wrote:
> > Branko Èibej <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?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 09:12:48 CEST