This is an attempt to sum up the open issues remaining before we can
make another try at converting our source code to git.
* As I noted previously, up till about 2003 we were quite haphazard about
applying CVS tags to identify the points where releases were made. Should
we try to clean that up?
On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 12:31 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
This is an attempt to sum up the open issues remaining before we can
make another try at converting our source code to git.
* As I noted previously, up till about 2003 we were quite haphazard about
applying CVS tags to identify the points
On 13/09/10 19:31, Tom Lane wrote:
* If we do the above, should it be done in the existing CVS repository
or just as part of the conversion to git? (I suspect it'd be a lot easier
in git.) Similarly, ought we to fix the now-known tagging inconsistencies
in the CVS repository, or just leave it
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of lun sep 13 12:31:53 -0400 2010:
* As I noted previously, up till about 2003 we were quite haphazard about
applying CVS tags to identify the points where releases were made. Should
we try to clean that up? I think there is a stronger case for moving the
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of lun sep 13 12:31:53 -0400 2010:
* As I noted previously, up till about 2003 we were quite haphazard about
applying CVS tags to identify the points where releases were made.
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
+1 on both -- fixing the broken tags, and creating the missing tags,
particularly since you already seem to have found out the necessary
dates for the missing tags.
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 1:21 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
+1 on both -- fixing the broken tags, and creating the missing tags,
particularly since you already
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 1:21 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Well, the other side of that argument is that changing these things in
the CVS repository will be overwriting the available evidence, in case
any questions come up later. On the git
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 19:14, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of lun sep 13 12:31:53 -0400 2010:
* As I noted previously, up till about 2003 we were quite haphazard
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 18:31, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
This is an attempt to sum up the open issues remaining before we can
make another try at converting our source code to git.
snip
* The REL8_0_0 branch needs to be downgraded to a tag, as previously
discussed.
Yeah, and that's
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
Yeah, let's not touch the CVS side, but definitely +1 for dropping
them from git (in fact, my script does this automatically if I just
let it run through all the steps, which I've repeatedly not done which
is why they've sometimes shown up and
11 matches
Mail list logo
