On Wed, October 5, 2011 6:14 am, Matt Welland wrote: ... > Every time pragmatism loses to philosophy someone, somewhere, is gonna get > screwed.
But "pragmatic" decisions made by someone who doesn't understand the philosophy/principles/rules can also cause problems, > > 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. "Those who rewrite history are condemned to repeat it" perhaps. > 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. Define "irrelevant", including how you can be absolutely sure that it applies to any particular case. > > 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. Not altogether a bad idea but, as you might expect, I would worry about how to select the time interval, and I think the system should insist on keeping a comment about the deletion. Eric -- ms fnd in a lbry _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
