Karl Fogel wrote:
> Branko Čibej <brane_at_xbc.nu> writes:
>
>> Yes, that's the can of worms I was talking about. But there aren't
>> that many options; we either keep an empty revision (i.e., no changes,
>> just the elision record); but IIRC that causes all sorts of other
>> problems; or, we put the elision record on the previous
>> revision. (Previous because it always exists -- we can't obliterate
>> revision 0.)
>>
>> However it wouldn't hurt to investigate if we can, in fact, leave
>> empty revisons around after an obliterate. That would be most useful
>> in general because existing revision numbers would remain valid, and
>> the need to re-check-out a zillion working copies would almost vanish.
>>
>
> We will definitely want to support the use case where the revision
> number itself has to go away. People may not use it very often, but
> when they want it, they really want it. However, that's also a case
> where keeping a record might not be necessary anyway!
>
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.
> I doubt the auditability bikeshed is going to be a design hog here.
> There are various reasonable ways to do it -- if we're implementing
> obliterate, then we'll pick one of those ways. Hanging things on
> revision numbers seems fine to me, and so far the can of worms looks
> more like a thimble of bacilli :-).
>
Heh. Just don't forget that you can fit more Vibrio cholerae into a
thimble than worms in any reasonably-sized can.
-- Brane
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 09:14:00 CEST