[wilg]

Very silly, they can't rewrite the commit history nor would it be proper to update old packaged releases.

[vvillena]

What do you mean they can't rewrite the commits? They can, they should, and it's really easy to do so. As for the packages, they should be taken offline.

[wilg]

They should neither rewrite the commits nor take the old packages offline. It's not worth a huge potential clusterfuck when the issue has been fixed on the latest version.

[vvillena]

You might be overestimating how hard this is, because it's not hard at all. It takes less than half an hour to create a script that does it.

[Mashimo]

What is the benefit of re-writing the git history?

[guappa]

Complying with the terms of use instead of infringing copyright

[wilg]

The terms of the license don’t require you to modify the git history that’s a goofy interpretation.

[kassner]

They should absolutely do it. They made a serious mistake and should pay for it, even if that means every Microsoft developer having to rebase all their WIP branches. The more expensive it gets the more they’ll pay attention to those things in the future.

[saagarjha]

Why not just fire the entire division? Maybe they should shut down the company?

[miffy900]

Rewriting those commits would effectively allow them to erase their mistake, which kind of lets Microsoft off the hook in a way.

[hoseja]

Git isn't some kind of secure blockchain.