Magnus Hagander 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 sometimes not in the o
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 18:31, 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.
> * The REL8_0_0 branch needs to be downgraded to a tag, as previously
> discussed.
Yeah, and that's easily done.
> *
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 19:14, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> 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 t
Robert Haas writes:
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 1:21 PM, Tom Lane 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 side, applying the tag to the
>> a
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 1:21 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Alvaro Herrera
>> 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
Robert Haas writes:
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> 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.
> +1 from me, too. I don't agree with sta
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Alvaro Herrera
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. Should
>> we try to cl
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 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 f
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 point
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?
11 matches
Mail list logo
