Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of lun sep 13 12:31:53 -0400 2010: > * As I noted previously, up till about 2003 we were quite haphazard about > applying CVS tags to identify the points where releases were made. Should > we try to clean that up? I think there is a stronger case for moving the > three existing misleading tags than for creating new tags matching the > releases that have none. Maybe nobody will ever care about any of them, > but if we are trying to create a good historical record it might be > appropriate to do it now while we have the information in mind.
+1 on both -- fixing the broken tags, and creating the missing tags, particularly since you already seem to have found out the necessary dates for the missing tags. > * There are a number of partial tags (tags applied to just a subset of > files) in the CVS repository: "MANUAL_1_0" and "SUPPORT" seem to have been > applied to only documentation-related files, and "creation" and > "Release-1-6-0" were applied only to src/interfaces/perl5/. I find the > latter two particularly misleading since they have nothing to do with > either creation of the whole project or a "release 1.6" of the whole > project. These partial tags don't translate very well to git, either. > I'm inclined to propose dropping all four. +1 on dropping these. > * There are a couple of manufactured commits that we could just delete, > I think: the ones to create the Release_2_0 and Release_2_0_0 tags. The > tags should be reapplied to the chronologically preceding mainline commits > instead. This is just cosmetic but we may as well do it. I still think > there's a cvs2git bug underlying those. +1 -- Álvaro Herrera <[email protected]> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
