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

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> I wonder if we should consider fixing some or all of these things on
>>> the master CVS repository. I wouldn't be too eager to inject those
>>> fake .0 commits for fear of breakage, but moving tags to where they
>>> ought to have been all along seems like it might be a good thing to do
>>> independent of git.

>> Yeah, that's something I was wondering too. Applying these fixes to the
>> master repository would also reduce the number of things we have to
>> remember to do during the final conversion. OTOH, there's that risk of
>> breaking something.

> Hand-written patches that apply directly to the RCS files seem like
> they'd be a risk for breakage, but I don't see why moving tags around
> would be all that dangerous, especially in cases where you can do it
> by running 'cvs' itself rather than 'rcs'. That should just be
> routine stuff, no?

Hrm, well, keep in mind that most of these problems were *created* by
careless use of "cvs tag". At the moment I'm leaning towards the idea
that we should leave the CVS repository as it is, rather than take any
risk of making things worse.

regards, tom lane