[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Proposal for sponsored development of "Obliterate"

From: Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_btopenworld.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 12:55:24 +0100

On Mon, 2009-07-27, Jack Repenning wrote:
> Going back to my restatement of your first case: one change I made in
> the wording was to remove the word "accidentally." There's some point
> to this: the thing added was often no accident, but rather further
> review, or changing circumstances, compel the removal. A real-world
> example that may be familiar to at least some readers: in the Eclipse
> community, they have fairly detailed constraints on the licensing of
> externally sourced modules added to the Eclipse site. But because
> review is expensive, they also have a procedure called something like
> "Deferred Intellectual Property," where an Eclipse project is allowed
> to add previously un-reviewed stuff speculatively, in parallel with
> launching the license review. If the review should turn out badly,
> then the component must be removed--utterly removed: the lawyers have
> determined that the mere presence of this module in the build tree is
> a license violation.

Can you give me a link to somewhere I can read about this requirement
for removal?

I'm interested in discerning the extent to which they want to trace the
banned code to WCs, mirror repositories, backups, and the like, and also
what kind of audit trail they would prefer to see in (or outside) the
repository. This is an aspect of "obliterate" that I have hardly gone

- Julian

> They're not concerned with preserving working
> copy health for any working copy that includes the banned module: any
> such working copy is a liability; if anything, it *should* begin
> failing. They're not concerned with excising a nibble of history, they
> want the whole dang thing gone, as if it had never been. And it may
> well be that quite a number of development and interim builds have
> been done, quite a number of dependent changes have been made, with
> the now-banned module in place: it is, if anything, *desirable* that
> such builds now become un-buildable, such changes fail to compile, and
> whatever work it takes now be performed to replace or do without the
> now-banned module. I removed "accidentally" in order to open the door
> to this possibility of nontrivial amounts of accumulated history, and
> nontrivial history breakage.

- Julian

Received on 2009-07-28 13:55:53 CEST

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.