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

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> We're not planning to delete the CVS repository, are we?
>>
>> Not in the short term, but I'd like to think that the git repository
>> will contain everything of conceivable interest.

> Hmm, OK. That's never really been one of my goals. :-)

I will confess to moving the goal posts a bit ;-). If we didn't have
such a near-perfect conversion, I would be willing to throw stuff
overboard on the grounds that people could go back to the CVS repository
if they cared. But we are at a point now where it's very hard to
conceive of a reason for needing to do that. So I don't want to
arbitrarily create reasons.

> I want a good, clean, complete history in git, but ancient partial
> branches are below my threshold for caring. But if you feel it's
> useful, we can keep the tag - I don't care enough to argue about it.

... but having said that, I'm not sure that the ecpg_big_bison branch
should be considered part of the core project history. You could
certainly argue that it wouldn't be there anyway if we'd had better
tools.

Again, I'd be interested to hear some other people's opinions.

regards, tom lane