On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 15:28, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 8:31 AM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: >>> Are we ready to drop the old git mirror? The one that's still around >>> (as postgresql-old.git) from before we migrated the main repository to >>> git, and thus has the old hashes around. >> >> I see no reason to drop that ever, or at least not any time soon. >> What is it costing us? > > Some disk space, so almost nothing. And the potential that people grab > it by mistake - it adds a bit to confusion.
Well if it's clearly labeled "old" I don't think it should confuse anyone much. You could even tack one more commit on there adding a README file with a big ol' warning. > Looking at it from the other side, what's the use-case for keeping it? > If you want to "diff" against it or something like that, you can just > do that against your local clone (that you already had - if you > didn't, you shouldn't be using it at all)... I realize it's not as "official" as the CVS repository was, but I still think we ought to hold onto it for a year or two. Maybe no one will ever look at it again, but I'm not prepared to bet on that. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
