Official compiler

[Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d]

On 2/26/16 6:04 AM, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-02-26 at 02:52 -0800, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
> wrote:
>> […]
>> I'm not aware of any, either, that is specific to github. But given
>> how digital
>> records in general (such as email, social media posts, etc.) are
>> routinely
>> accepted as evidence, I'd be very surprised if github wasn't.
>
> Be careful about make assumptions of admissibility as evidence. I have
> been expert witness in three cases regarding email logs and it is not
> always so simple to have them treated as a matter of record. Of course
> the USA is not the UK, rules and history are different in every
> jurisdiction – and the USA has more than one!
>

I think it's much stronger when the email/logs are maintained by a 
disinterested third party.

For example, I'd say emails that were maintained on a private server by 
one of the parties in the case would be less reliable than logs stored 
on yahoo's servers that neither party has access to.

There would also be no shortage of witnesses "Yes, I remember the day 
Walter added feature x, and github's logs are correct".

I think Walter is on solid ground there.

-Steve