On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> * One that creates the partial branch ecpg_big_bison. I think we have >>> to live with this too. I don't want to drop the branch altogether, >>> as that would represent a loss of development history. The only other >>> alternative I can think of is to try to convert it into a full branch, >>> but I'm unsure what the implications would be of that. > >> I doubt there's a clean way to do that. I am not sure there's much >> point in moving the tag over to git - anyone wanting to do something >> useful with it will need to use CVS anyway, won't they? > > Well ... I guess the other attitude we could take is that that was a > private development branch of Michael's. If we'd been working in git > at the time, that branch would never have been seen outside his personal > repository, most likely. The changes did eventually get merged back to > HEAD, so we'd not be losing anything critical if we just dropped the > branch altogether. Anybody else have an opinion on what to do with it?
We're not planning to delete the CVS repository, are we? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
