Re: [Monotone-devel] forbid: a (nicer?) alternative to obliterate

[Nathaniel Smith]

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 not have it to send?

Would this feature actually make the people requesting obliterate
support happy?  For instance, any form of obliterate that is not
automatically transmitted might be useless to them.  Or any form of
obliterate that leaves behind a cryptographically strong assertion
that the content _used_ to be there (in the form of continued mentions
of the file hash in the revision/manifest texts) might be useless to
them.  Or content might be forbidden because it was proprietary, but
now the company has decided to release it as FOSS after all -- or it
might have been stored in a mtn db all along, just in a private
branch, and the problem was that it got accidentally merged into a
public branch, and the original owner would like to remove it from the
public branch while continuing to keep it in their private branch.
All of these are cases where this doesn't quite work, but I don't know
if it matters...

-- Nathaniel

-- 
In mathematics, it's not enough to read the words
you have to hear the music