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

Re: Two approaches to data-hiding (for obliterate)

From: Branko Cibej <brane_at_xbc.nu>
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 2009 12:19:57 +0200

John Szakmeister wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 4:07 PM, Julian Foad <julian.foad_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
>> Branko Cibej wrote:
>>> Julian Foad wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 19:16 +0200, Branko Cibej wrote:
>>>>> Seriously: don't try to overload path-based authz [...]
>>>> Thanks... but please read the rest of the thread first :-) I'm not.
>>> Well yes; i did read it. Part of the differenceis the "repos-level" vs.
>>> "filesystem-level", and with obliterate, you're deep in the latter.
>>> Sooner or later.
>> I really appreciate your feedback. And yes you're right that I'll be
>> deep in the FS in the end, as my impression is that the space-saving
>> aspect of obliterate is the more important aspect for the majority of
>> users (users meaning administrators).
> The other big reason I've heard for having obliterate is the "Whups!
> I committed something that wasn't meant to be shared with these folks,
> and I want to remove all traces of it" factor. Perhaps because of a
> IP violation, a password, etc. It's good to be able to go back and
> say: "It's gone. No, I really mean, it's *gone*." That screams
> needing this at the FS level too.

That has always been the intention. Julian just decided to take two
steps to get there instead of one; which IMHO is a good idea.

-- Brane

Received on 2009-10-03 12:20:16 CEST

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.