On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 03:04, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com writes:
Personally, my utility for the old repo is not much (if it was anything
important, I wouldn't have relied on the unofficial repo). But we should
probably give a little bit of warning for
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 4:58 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 03:04, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com writes:
Personally, my utility for the old repo is not much (if it was anything
important, I wouldn't have relied on the
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 13:10, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 4:58 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 03:04, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com writes:
Personally, my utility for the old repo is
Hi!
Are we ready to drop the old git mirror? The one that's still around
(as postgresql-old.git) from before we migrated the main repository to
git, and thus has the old hashes around.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
--
Sent via
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 8:31 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
Are we ready to drop the old git mirror? The one that's still around
(as postgresql-old.git) from before we migrated the main repository to
git, and thus has the old hashes around.
I see no reason to drop that ever, or
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 15:28, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 8:31 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
Are we ready to drop the old git mirror? The one that's still around
(as postgresql-old.git) from before we migrated the main repository to
git,
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 15:28, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 8:31 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
Are we ready to drop the old git mirror? The one that's still around
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 15:28, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I see no reason to drop that ever, or at least not any time soon.
What is it costing us?
Some disk
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net wrote:
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 15:28, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
I see no reason to drop that ever,
On Thu, 2010-12-30 at 11:02 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
I'm with Magnus on this: the risk of confusion seems to greatly
outweigh any possible benefit from keeping it. There is no reason for
anyone to use that old repo unless they are still working with a local
clone of it, and even if they do have
Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com writes:
Personally, my utility for the old repo is not much (if it was anything
important, I wouldn't have relied on the unofficial repo). But we should
probably give a little bit of warning for folks that might want to
rebase or translate some old notes.
Well, I
The new git repository will have different SHA1s for all of the commits,
so any old SHA1s will be useless without the old repository.
Hopefully nobody used links to specific commits (or SHA1s) pointing to
the old git repository for anything important. But I found myself doing
so occasionally for
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 23:29, Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com wrote:
The new git repository will have different SHA1s for all of the commits,
so any old SHA1s will be useless without the old repository.
Hopefully nobody used links to specific commits (or SHA1s) pointing to
the old git
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com wrote:
The new git repository will have different SHA1s for all of the commits,
so any old SHA1s will be useless without the old repository.
Hopefully nobody used links to specific commits (or SHA1s) pointing to
the old git
On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 23:30 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
It might well be, and the cost is low. But if you're talking about
gitweb links or so, they'll still be invalid, because it would have to
be renamed to postgresql-old or something like that...
Sure, that's fine.
It would just be nice
15 matches
Mail list logo
