Going the full way with the obliterate feature, i.e. permanently
delete a file version and recursively spread this deletion like a virus
upon sync, is not certainly a feature we would be comfortable with, as
the would be quite a lot of issues regarding trust (oh, the remote
server states I should
Lapo Luchini wrote:
Once policies are here, instead of a forbidden contents table it could
certainly be useful (better?) to have a sort of CRL for VERSIONs
(only, instead of a certificate revocation list it would be a content
removal list) signed by the very same people that have signed the
Hello Lapo,
Lapo Luchini wrote:
What do you think?
What possible problems do you foresee that I didn't think of?
(please think about the base strictly local-only forbidden list and
the policy-based, and thus distributed, CRL thing separately, on reply,
as they are certainly two very different
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 09:38:42AM +0100, Lapo Luchini wrote:
On sync, any forbidden VERSION received would be silently dropped.
What about when we are the ones sending the revision, which contains
the forbidden file, so that our peer is expecting us to send the
contents of this file but we do
Nathaniel == Nathaniel Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nathaniel Would this feature actually make the people requesting
Nathaniel obliterate support happy?
I don't think you can make everyone happy. Somebody somewhere will
disagree with the principles behind obliterate and modify their
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 02:47:31PM +1100, Brian May wrote:
Nathaniel == Nathaniel Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nathaniel Would this feature actually make the people requesting
Nathaniel obliterate support happy?
I don't think you can make everyone happy. Somebody somewhere
