Message-ID: <4A1C11D5.4070406@dunslane.net>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 11:59:17 -0400
From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US;
	rv:1.8.0.12) Gecko/20071019 Fedora/1.0.9-3.fc6 pango-text
	SeaMonkey/1.0.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
CC: Aidan Van Dyk <aidan@highrise.ca>,
	PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Developer meeting minutes up
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>
In-Reply-To: <12570.1243351182@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


Tom Lane wrote:
> Aidan Van Dyk <aidan@highrise.ca> writes:
>   
>> This has been raised and ignored many times before on -hackers... The
>> reason is because the tags in the CVS repository are "broken" (i.e they
>> are such that it's impossible to actually create all the tags), so the
>> git "cvsimport" tools that try to tags all croak on the PG CVS repository.
>>     
>
>   
>> The tool which doesn't croak doesn't try and import all the tags, just
>> the sticky "branch tags"...
>>     
>
>   
>> Scripts to "fix" (actually, remove) the broken tags have also been
>> posted, along with requests that if somebody is "mucking" with the
>> actual repository, to make sure it's known about, and access is "denied"
>> during the mucking period (access being any rsync/anoncvs/mirroring of
>> the cvs root).
>>     
>
> 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.  Can you refresh our memory about which tags are problematic and
> exactly what needs to be done about 'em?
>
> 			
>   

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.

cheers

andrew