On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 6:29 PM, M.-A. Lemburg <m...@egenix.com> wrote: > I'm not sure whether throwing away history in form of such tags > is a good idea. > > I don't know how hg manages this, but can't we preserve the tag > information of the tags that you've scheduled to be removed > in some place that can easily be pulled in but doesn't > affect the main repo size ?
But why bother? The tags are static, so grabbing them from svn instead of hg shouldn't be a big issue. If we had unlimited resources to support the transition my opinion would probably be different, but since we don't, applying the simple rule of culling the non-release tags seems good enough and better than spending too much time trying to figure out which tags are "important" enough to be worth preserving. > Renaming the release tags certainly is a good idea, since > we're not stuck with CVS naming requirements anymore. I'd prefix > the release tags with "release-" for additional context, > though. So long as we don't start using bare numbers for anything other than releases, I think that would just become redundant typing in fairly short order. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
