On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Steve Havelka <smh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/4/11 4:11 PM, Dmitry Chestnykh wrote: > >> Found it. In the UI, go to the "Files" section, select a file, click >>>> on "Shun" in the menu bar, and finalize with "Rebuild". >>>> >>>> As has already been said, you don't really want to do that. If you >>> think >>> you do, you do not understand what Fossil is for, nor do you understand >>> the principles of software engineering, nor what you will do in nearly >>> two >>> years time when you need to figure out what on earth you were thinking >>> two years earlier to make you write something so silly, and the only >>> thing that might help you is those files you threw away. If you don't >>> care you don't need Fossil anyway. If someone is paying you to do stuff, >>> you need to care, and you need Fossil or something like it and you need >>> to use it properly. >>> >> This reply should be shunned from the mailing list. >> >> > Agreed. > > Given that we all make mistakes from time to time, like checking passwords > into a repo or checking in huge files, and given that there's at least one > hacky, clumsy workaround for deleting stuff (export to git, modify, import > from git), and given that these sorts of requests (to delete files, > branches, etc) do recur, maybe the philosophy of "never delete anything" > still needs further amendment? > Every time pragmatism loses to philosophy someone, somewhere, is gonna get screwed. It is noble to have a philosophy of "don't rewrite history" but only to an extent. Some obvious and perhaps not so obvious examples have been mentioned in this thread. I think fossil has a nice balance here. It is possible to remove stuff but it takes a little effort. Never deleting stuff is just silly. An record of the past that stores irrelevant data is quite likely less useful than a record that has been cautiously cleaned up. What I mean to say is, it kinda seems like the software should serve the > users first, and the philosophy second. We've already got the "shun" > because it was found to be kind of necessary. And deleting things is a > pretty natural kind of operation (... and one where there certainly isn't a > technical limitation against it). Saying "don't do that" is already leading > to a certain amount of friction, and I don't imagine that that will diminish > as time goes on. > I'd personally like to see a mechanism that does the following: 1. Stops the object(s) from being propagated or received. 2. Hides the objects(s) from view, (but can be enabled to show again) 3. After a period of time, I think about a year, the data is removed entirely. > It's of course not my software, and I don't have patches to contribute, but > I'd still encourage the development team to consider that maybe a delete > function wouldn't be such a bad idea. (It could still, of course, be > officially discouraged.) > ______________________________**_________________ > fossil-users mailing list > fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.**org <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:**8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/**fossil-users<http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users> >
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
