Re: Report: removing the inconsistencies in our CVS->git conversion

Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mar sep 14 12:45:28 -0400 2010:

> > I want a good, clean, complete history in git, but ancient partial
> > branches are below my threshold for caring. But if you feel it's
> > useful, we can keep the tag - I don't care enough to argue about it.
>
> ... but having said that, I'm not sure that the ecpg_big_bison branch
> should be considered part of the core project history. You could
> certainly argue that it wouldn't be there anyway if we'd had better
> tools.
>
> Again, I'd be interested to hear some other people's opinions.

I think there's hardly much of interest in that branch, so it doesn't
make sense to waste too much effort on it. However, why would we delete
it? Just keep it with the manufactured tag and all -- so it is there,
even if the history is not all that clean. This _is_ an option, right?

--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support