On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 15:28, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 8:31 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>>> Are we ready to drop the old git mirror? The one that's still around
>>> (as postgresql-old.git) from before we migrated the main repository to
>>> git, and thus has the old hashes around.
>> I see no reason to drop that ever, or at least not any time soon.
>> What is it costing us?
> Some disk space, so almost nothing. And the potential that people grab
> it by mistake - it adds a bit to confusion.
Well if it's clearly labeled "old" I don't think it should confuse
anyone much. You could even tack one more commit on there adding a
README file with a big ol' warning.
> Looking at it from the other side, what's the use-case for keeping it?
> If you want to "diff" against it or something like that, you can just
> do that against your local clone (that you already had - if you
> didn't, you shouldn't be using it at all)...
I realize it's not as "official" as the CVS repository was, but I
still think we ought to hold onto it for a year or two. Maybe no one
will ever look at it again, but I'm not prepared to bet on that.
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2010-12-30 14:54:28|
|Subject: Re: Streaming replication as a separate permissions|
|Previous:||From: Florian Pflug||Date: 2010-12-30 14:49:09|
|Subject: Re: Snapshot synchronization, again...|