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

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> * One that creates the partial branch ecpg_big_bison. I think we have
>> to live with this too. I don't want to drop the branch altogether,
>> as that would represent a loss of development history. The only other
>> alternative I can think of is to try to convert it into a full branch,
>> but I'm unsure what the implications would be of that.

> I doubt there's a clean way to do that. I am not sure there's much
> point in moving the tag over to git - anyone wanting to do something
> useful with it will need to use CVS anyway, won't they?

Well ... I guess the other attitude we could take is that that was a
private development branch of Michael's. If we'd been working in git
at the time, that branch would never have been seen outside his personal
repository, most likely. The changes did eventually get merged back to
HEAD, so we'd not be losing anything critical if we just dropped the
branch altogether. Anybody else have an opinion on what to do with it?

regards, tom lane