Hi, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-12/msg01879.php
Thanks for the link. I'm assuming you've adjusted the tags to fit a single commit. Out of curiosity: do you think (or have evidence that) this is the only tag that spans multiple commits? >> In what way do you consider the tags "broken"? > > The tag applies to different commits on different files. That's perfectly valid for CVS (and can be represented in subversion as well). Such a tag cannot (easily) be converted to git, though (nor mercurial or monotone), where tags are attached to a single commit. >> (As CVS does not >> guarantee any inter-file consistency, I don't think one can speak of >> brokenness at all. > > Just because CVS doesn't guarantee it, it doesn't mean it's not broken. It depends on your understanding of what a tag is. CVS and subversion certainly have a different understanding from yours (and sometimes tout this as a feature): their tags can easily span multiple commits. You (as well as myself, BTW) seem to think of a tag like something that's attached to a single commit. > Otherwise, any possible random permutation of files would be a non-broken > checkout by your definition. Note that this is not necessarily my definition, rather CVS's (or that of subversion). And yes, CVS repositories can be pretty badly screwed. Regards Markus Wanner -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
