Re: Policy decisions and cosmetic issues remaining for the git conversion

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
>> +1 on both -- fixing the broken tags, and creating the missing tags,
>> particularly since you already seem to have found out the necessary
>> dates for the missing tags.

> +1 from me, too. I don't agree with statements upthread that this
> will be "easier" to do in git. I think we should fix the CVS history.
> The git conversion is a one-time event. Once it's done, history is
> set in stone. We don't want to set the wrong thing in stone.

Well, the other side of that argument is that changing these things in
the CVS repository will be overwriting the available evidence, in case
any questions come up later. On the git side, applying the tag to the
appropriate commit is an easy --- and easily changeable --- thing, isn't
it?

regards, tom lane