Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.208.211]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 657B4633FB8 for ; Tue, 26 May 2009 13:22:00 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.211]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 94538-07 for ; Tue, 26 May 2009 13:21:58 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFA946331F9 for ; Tue, 26 May 2009 13:21:58 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n4QGIHgD013462; Tue, 26 May 2009 12:18:17 -0400 (EDT) To: Andrew Dunstan cc: Aidan Van Dyk , PostgreSQL-development Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Developer meeting minutes up In-reply-to: <4A1C11D5.4070406@dunslane.net> References: <937d27e10904270840vaf70c0fr37518478b31d8a15@mail.gmail.com> <4A189843.3010200@agliodbs.com> <20090524165012.GL8123@tamriel.snowman.net> <4A1A52F5.7030009@hagander.net> <20090525122821.GO8123@tamriel.snowman.net> <4A1BABBC.7070803@hagander.net> <4A1BE039.70008@dunslane.net> <10273.1243343651@sss.pgh.pa.us> <4A1BFF70.4000506@dunslane.net> <20090526144812.GC15213@yugib.highrise.ca> <12570.1243351182@sss.pgh.pa.us> <4A1C11D5.4070406@dunslane.net> Comments: In-reply-to Andrew Dunstan message dated "Tue, 26 May 2009 11:59:17 -0400" Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 12:18:17 -0400 Message-ID: <13461.1243354697@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.124 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL=0.124 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200905/1029 X-Sequence-Number: 138571 Andrew Dunstan writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Up to now I've always been of the opinion that fixing those tags wasn't >> worth taking any risk for. But if we are thinking of moving away from >> CVS, then this clearly becomes one of the hurdles we have to jump on the >> way. > I think we need just to remove the two tags in question (they have long > been irrelevant). Prudence suggests that we should do that some time > (weeks, I think) after the 8.4 release, when reverting ,if we find any > breakage, won't be too painful. I don't see a lot of point in waiting till after 8.4.0. There is no time, ever, where we are sure there will be no release for weeks --- a security or data-loss bug could crop up at any time. And not messing up back branch update releases is even more important than not messing up 8.4.0, because the back branches are much more likely to get dropped straight into production. Obviously we want a solid backup of the pre-modification CVS repository, and we have to follow Aidan's advice about synchronizing the change with mirror repositories, but I don't see a strong argument for waiting weeks to do this. I think we should get it over with, so people can get on with the work that it's blocking. regards, tom lane