Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Old git repo

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Old git repo
Date: 2010-12-30 20:55:22
Message-ID: 1293742522.27087.12.camel@jdavis-ux.asterdata.local (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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 a local clone, such a clone is
> self-sufficient.

The reason I originally asked for it to be kept around was not because
it's hard to rebase, but because there might be references to SHA1s from
that repo floating around.

I don't think these would be very common, nor critical, but I know I
wrote a few emails that included things like "look at this commit".
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.

Regards,
	Jeff Davis


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2010-12-30 20:55:28
Subject: Re: Sync Rep Design
Previous:From: Robert TreatDate: 2010-12-30 20:51:19
Subject: Re: Sync Rep Design

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group