Re: Policy decisions and cosmetic issues remaining for the git conversion

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 where releases were made. Should
> we try to clean that up? I think there is a stronger case for moving the
> three existing misleading tags than for creating new tags matching the
> releases that have none. Maybe nobody will ever care about any of them,
> but if we are trying to create a good historical record it might be
> appropriate to do it now while we have the information in mind.

It is obnoxious but I think it is a good idea.

>
> * 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 for the conversion to deal with?

IMO eventually the CVS repo will get deleted. We should do it where it
is going to have he longest life, which would be git (or the conversion
as it was) at this point (for at least another 15 years).

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

--
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt