> Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply to the extent that processing is necessary:
> [...]
> (d) for archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes or statistical purposes in accordance with Article 89(1) in so far as the right referred to in paragraph 1 is likely to render impossible or seriously impair the achievement of the objectives of that processing;
(emphasis mine)
I'd not say redacting a git repository does 'seriously impair' processing for archiving purposes. All the data (with the exception of the redacted e-mail) is still there, after all.
Still, the hashes will have changed, making the repo less useful for current users. But that has nothing to do with archival.
> [...] where processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest [...] the processing should have a basis in Union or Member State law.
I don't think that purpose of archiving has a basis in law.
That said, I do remember my law professor calling the 'right to be forgotten' one of the weaker parts of the GDPR, and I'm not an expert, so it's possible I'm missing something.
> [...]
> (d) for archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes or statistical purposes in accordance with Article 89(1) in so far as the right referred to in paragraph 1 is likely to render impossible or seriously impair the achievement of the objectives of that processing;
(emphasis mine)
I'd not say redacting a git repository does 'seriously impair' processing for archiving purposes. All the data (with the exception of the redacted e-mail) is still there, after all.
Still, the hashes will have changed, making the repo less useful for current users. But that has nothing to do with archival.