On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 18:19, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: >> Robert Haas wrote: >>> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: >>> >> Or for that we could just disable branch creation *completely*, and >>> >> then turn off that restriction that one time / year that we actually >>> >> create a branch? >>> > >>> > Well, branch creation can always be undone --- branch removal seems like >>> > the big problem because it can't. >>> >>> As I've repeatedly said, branch removal CAN be undone. I don't see >>> any evidence that we have an actual problem here that needs worrying >>> about. >> >> OK, someone removes a branch. If it is still in his local tree, he can >> push it back. If not, he has to go around and find someone who does >> have it, and who has the most recent copy? Can master be removed too? > > So if someone does this (which does not look at all likely to me): > > git push origin :REL9_0_STABLE > git branch -r -D origin/REL9_0_STABLE > git branch -d REL9_0_STABLE > > ...then, yes, they will need to find someone who has run 'git pull' > since the last change that was made to that branch. OR they could get > it back from the anonymous mirror of the canonical repository, which > should always be up to date, OR I think there's an automatically > updated mirror on github also.
There is. Shouldn't we also be able to construct it from the latest mail to pgsql-committers, since it has the sha1 hash in it.. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
