Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On tor, 2010-05-13 at 04:41 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Right, and omitting tags was in fact one of the "features" of fromcvs
that made us use it, because any tool that tries to convert tags will
explode on our CVS tree, for reasons explained in the above paragraph.
We have also discussed this in more detail about three times before.
Well, yes, but I have been wondering if this has to be an all or nothing
deal. How many tags can we not tie to a known tree in git? My suspicion
is we can probably identify most of them quite well. If we can that
would be nice.
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-04/msg00036.php
Quite so. All the tags apparently causing problems are of no more than
historical interest to us. But more recent tags, especially for
currently maintained branches, are of interest.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
