DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com;
	h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references;
	b=HIMlngpy5zHQak/OKwPW0T9vi2xaSGyqIMYaZvsP+CF8UP9ZVAcZIXcuJCiFYTHY2K7VlsotIgtTlzha3zfXaDpYOd2pMbKKgFTu/uftYbd3vg2xuYYl9kXQ+WSrlg8BrpQgwLEOx5vNSo2/NwWeCFlVRUXoPIkNyOkNVPlQx2k=
Message-ID: <fc339e4a05020818221a918895@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 11:22:01 +0900
From: Miles Bader <snogglethorpe@gmail.com>
To: gnu-arch-users@gnu.org
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Making --setup default in tag and import
In-Reply-To: <20050208232512.GA4503@benfinney.id.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <20050207184626.GB11858@ukato> <200502071913.LAA09656@emf.net>
	<87sm47i0d1.fsf-monnier+gmane.comp.version-control.arch.user@gnu.org>
	<4208DE97.40706@panoramicfeedback.com> <20050208231251.GA1604@ukato>
	<20050208232512.GA4503@benfinney.id.au>
Precedence: list
Reply-To: snogglethorpe@gmail.com, miles@gnu.org
Sender: gnu-arch-users-bounces+migo=homemail.com@gnu.org
Errors-To: gnu-arch-users-bounces+migo=homemail.com@gnu.org
Status: RO
Content-Length: 2047
Lines: 48
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 10:25:13 +1100, Ben Finney <ben@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> This then breaks the "one and only one [...] forever and ever" that
> Aaron said, above.
> 
> Once something has happened in the archive it *has happened*; any "undo"
> or "redo" is a further change, recorded in addition to the original.
> That's the model on which GNU Arch is founded; a deliberate design
> decision.
> 
> You seem to be suggesting technical "solutions" to subvert something
> that is a fundamental part of the design of GNU Arch.

Christ, can we be a bit more pedantic please?  The "11th deadly sin",
as used recently against arch :-):  "11.  to rate the beauty of
mathematics above the usability of your compiler."

This attribute of arch is great in general, but it only really
_matters_ if someone has a dependency on the information in question. 
In practice, a command to delete stuff from a private local archive in
certain cases would be a nice tool in a limited set of circumstances,
and people would appreciate it.

If such a command were actually offered by tla, it should try to
automatically enforce safety (e.g., once if a branch/revision has been
mirrored/checked-out, it shouldn't be deleted) and maybe implementing
such enforcement is too annoying.  But that's a practical decision.

BTW, on the original subject, the idea that requiring -S is actually
going to make it safer seems ... ludicrous.  As has been pointed out,
it will simply become an automatic part of such commands, a
"--yes-really" option, and people will create bogus branches because
of typos with exactly the same frequency as if there were no -S
option.  So while the question of whether certain archive deletions
should be allowed is interesting, I'm not sure it really affects the
issue of -S very much.

-Miles
-- 
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.


_______________________________________________
Gnu-arch-users mailing list
Gnu-arch-users@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users

GNU arch home page:
http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/