Re: the right to rewrite history to rectify the past (was Re: Concerns/questions around Software Heritage Archive)

[MSavoritias]

On 3/21/24 17:08, Giovanni Biscuolo wrote:
> Hello pinoaffe,
>
> pinoaffe <pinoaffe@gmail.com> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> > I think we, as Guix,
> > - should examine if/how it is currently feasible to rewrite our git
> > history,
> it's not, see also:
> https://guix.gnu.org/en/blog/2020/securing-updates/
>
> > - should examine possible workarounds going forward,
> > - should move towards something like UUIDs and petnames in the long run.
> >
> > (see https://spritelyproject.org/news/petname-systems.html).
> I don't understand how using petnames, uuids or even a re:claimID
> identity (see below) could solve the problem with "rewriting history" in
> case a person wishes to change his or her previous _published_ name
> (petname, uuid...) in an archived content-addressable storage system.

It doesnt solve the problem of rewriting history. It solves the bug of 
having names part of the git history.

see also https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/20960 for Gitlab 
doing the same thing.


MSavoritias

> As a side note, other than the "petname system" please also consider
> re:claimID from GNUnet:
> https://www.gnunet.org/en/reclaim/index.html
> https://www.gnunet.org/en/reclaim/motivation.html
>
> [...]
>
> Regards, Giovanni.
>
>
> [1] https://guix.gnu.org/en/blog/2020/securing-updates/