On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Markus Wanner <mar...@bluegap.ch> wrote: > Peter Eisentraut wrote: >>> 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. [...] > You (as well as myself, BTW) seem to think of a tag like something > that's attached to a single commit.
I think this is a semantic argument. The problem isn't that we don't understand how CVS behaves; it's that we find that behavior undesirable, aka broken. If we really care about having a tag that contains the exact files that are tagged in CVS, we can create a branch from one of the commits involved, and then apply a commit to that branch that places it in the state that matches the contents of the CVS tag. AIUI, this is not very different from what you'd have to do in Subversion, where a tag is a branch is a copy. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
