Re: PostgreSQL Developer meeting minutes up

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane escribi:
>> What was in the back of my mind was that we'd go around and mass-remove
>> $PostgreSQL$ (and any other lurking tags), but only from HEAD and only
>> after the repo conversion. Although just before it would be okay too.

> You mean we would remove them from CVS? I don't think that's
> necessarily a good idea; it'd be massive changes for no good reason.

Uh, how is it different from any other mass edit, such as our annual
copyright-year updates, or pgindent runs?

> My idea was to remove them from the repository that would be used for the
> conversion (I think that means editing the ,v files),

Ick ... I'm willing to tolerate a few small manual ,v edits if we have
to do it to make tags consistent or something like that. I don't think
we should be doing massive edits of that kind.

But anyway, that's not the interesting point. The interesting point is
what about the historical aspect of it, not whether we want to dispense
with the tags going forward. Should our repo conversion try to
represent the historical states of the files including the tag strings?

regards, tom lane