Received: from maia.hub.org (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE4AF6321CE for ; Thu, 28 May 2009 14:54:31 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 79491-03 for ; Thu, 28 May 2009 14:54:30 -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 5077A62DBF4 for ; Thu, 28 May 2009 14:54:30 -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 n4SHs3Uc013531; Thu, 28 May 2009 13:54:03 -0400 (EDT) To: Alvaro Herrera cc: Robert Haas , Markus Wanner , Andrew Dunstan , Aidan Van Dyk , Heikki Linnakangas , Magnus Hagander , PostgreSQL-development Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Developer meeting minutes up In-reply-to: <20090528174025.GF5156@alvh.no-ip.org> References: <20090528125944.GS15213@yugib.highrise.ca> <603c8f070905280649m5d5fc458se54435dfe20cc7ca@mail.gmail.com> <4A1E9D98.7030208@dunslane.net> <8547.1243522369@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20090528174015.964447it00chy25b@mail.bluegap.ch> <603c8f070905280846q46220e39u57fc24ac7b6feb7@mail.gmail.com> <20090528181016.20761ewel8xikmzs@mail.bluegap.ch> <603c8f070905280921h1f8a59bahf6122abfbb2a4ef6@mail.gmail.com> <20090528164401.GE5156@alvh.no-ip.org> <12042.1243529466@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20090528174025.GF5156@alvh.no-ip.org> Comments: In-reply-to Alvaro Herrera message dated "Thu, 28 May 2009 13:40:25 -0400" Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 13:54:03 -0400 Message-ID: <13530.1243533243@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200905/1288 X-Sequence-Number: 138830 Alvaro Herrera writes: > Tom Lane escribió: >> 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