On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 18:19, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>> Robert Haas wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>>> >> Or for that we could just disable branch creation *completely*, and
>>> >> then turn off that restriction that one time / year that we actually
>>> >> create a branch?
>>> > Well, branch creation can always be undone --- branch removal seems like
>>> > the big problem because it can't.
>>> As I've repeatedly said, branch removal CAN be undone. I don't see
>>> any evidence that we have an actual problem here that needs worrying
>> OK, someone removes a branch. If it is still in his local tree, he can
>> push it back. If not, he has to go around and find someone who does
>> have it, and who has the most recent copy? Can master be removed too?
> So if someone does this (which does not look at all likely to me):
> git push origin :REL9_0_STABLE
> git branch -r -D origin/REL9_0_STABLE
> git branch -d REL9_0_STABLE
> ...then, yes, they will need to find someone who has run 'git pull'
> since the last change that was made to that branch. OR they could get
> it back from the anonymous mirror of the canonical repository, which
> should always be up to date, OR I think there's an automatically
> updated mirror on github also.
Shouldn't we also be able to construct it from the latest mail to
pgsql-committers, since it has the sha1 hash in it..
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Kevin Grittner||Date: 2011-01-27 17:24:38|
|Subject: Re: Caution when removing git branches|
|Previous:||From: Noah Misch||Date: 2011-01-27 17:23:17|
|Subject: Re: ALTER TYPE 3: add facility to identify furtherno-work cases|