From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Pitre Subject: Re: removing content from git history Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 13:02:08 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: References: <20070221164527.GA8513@ginosko.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Cc: Michael Hendricks , git@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Torvalds X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Feb 21 19:02:18 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HJvnF-00048y-9e for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Wed, 21 Feb 2007 19:02:17 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1422676AbXBUSCK (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Feb 2007 13:02:10 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1422736AbXBUSCK (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Feb 2007 13:02:10 -0500 Received: from relais.videotron.ca ([24.201.245.36]:39089 "EHLO relais.videotron.ca" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1422676AbXBUSCJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Feb 2007 13:02:09 -0500 Received: from xanadu.home ([74.56.106.175]) by VL-MH-MR001.ip.videotron.ca (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-2.05 (built Apr 28 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JDT00E1XRFKHSA0@VL-MH-MR001.ip.videotron.ca> for git@vger.kernel.org; Wed, 21 Feb 2007 13:02:08 -0500 (EST) In-reply-to: X-X-Sender: nico@xanadu.home Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote: > But at least in theory, it wouldn't be impossible to extend on the > ".git/grafts" kind of setup to say "this object has been consciously > deleted", and that could in some circumstances be a better model. The > biggest headache there would be the need to extend the native git protocol > with a way to add such objects. I think that would be a big security issue. Right now the GIT history can be validated and more importantly trusted from a single commit signature. If poking holes in that model is allowed by the graft mechanism, it must remain a local thing and a very conscious one otherwise the GIT trust model would be greatly weakened. If your goal is to remove content froma repository then the only sensible way is to rewrite history before publishing. It is pointless to add mechanisms to remove content after it has been distributed. Nicolas