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

On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> * One that creates the partial branch ecpg_big_bison.  I think we have
>>> to live with this too.  I don't want to drop the branch altogether,
>>> as that would represent a loss of development history.  The only other
>>> alternative I can think of is to try to convert it into a full branch,
>>> but I'm unsure what the implications would be of that.
>
>> I doubt there's a clean way to do that.  I am not sure there's much
>> point in moving the tag over to git - anyone wanting to do something
>> useful with it will need to use CVS anyway, won't they?
>
> Well ... I guess the other attitude we could take is that that was a
> private development branch of Michael's.  If we'd been working in git
> at the time, that branch would never have been seen outside his personal
> repository, most likely.  The changes did eventually get merged back to
> HEAD, so we'd not be losing anything critical if we just dropped the
> branch altogether.  Anybody else have an opinion on what to do with it?

We're not planning to delete the CVS repository, are we?

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company