| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Old git repo |
| Date: | 2010-12-30 20:55:22 |
| Message-ID: | 1293742522.27087.12.camel@jdavis-ux.asterdata.local |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2010-12-30 at 11:02 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm with Magnus on this: the risk of confusion seems to greatly
> outweigh any possible benefit from keeping it. There is no reason for
> anyone to use that old repo unless they are still working with a local
> clone of it, and even if they do have a local clone, such a clone is
> self-sufficient.
The reason I originally asked for it to be kept around was not because
it's hard to rebase, but because there might be references to SHA1s from
that repo floating around.
I don't think these would be very common, nor critical, but I know I
wrote a few emails that included things like "look at this commit".
Personally, my utility for the old repo is not much (if it was anything
important, I wouldn't have relied on the unofficial repo). But we should
probably give a little bit of warning for folks that might want to
rebase or translate some old notes.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-12-30 20:55:28 | Re: Sync Rep Design |
| Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2010-12-30 20:51:19 | Re: Sync Rep Design |