On Thu, 2010-12-30 at 11:02 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm with Magnus on this: the risk of confusion seems to greatly
> outweigh any possible benefit from keeping it. There is no reason for
> anyone to use that old repo unless they are still working with a local
> clone of it, and even if they do have a local clone, such a clone is
> self-sufficient.
The reason I originally asked for it to be kept around was not because
it's hard to rebase, but because there might be references to SHA1s from
that repo floating around.
I don't think these would be very common, nor critical, but I know I
wrote a few emails that included things like "look at this commit".
Personally, my utility for the old repo is not much (if it was anything
important, I wouldn't have relied on the unofficial repo). But we should
probably give a little bit of warning for folks that might want to
rebase or translate some old notes.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
