On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 13:10, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 4:58 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 03:04, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Jeff Davis writes:
Personally, my utility for the old repo is not much (if it was anything
important, I wouldn't have relie
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 4:58 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 03:04, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Jeff Davis writes:
>>> 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 giv
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 03:04, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeff Davis writes:
>> 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
>> rebas
Jeff Davis writes:
> 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.
Well, I guess the ques
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 h
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 15:28, Robert Haas wrote:
I see no reason to drop that ever, or at least not any time soon.
What is it costing us?
>
>>> Some
Robert Haas writes:
> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 15:28, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> 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 peopl
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 15:28, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 8:31 AM, Magnus Hagander 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
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 15:28, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 8:31 AM, Magnus Hagander 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.
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 8:31 AM, Magnus Hagander 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
Hi!
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.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
--
Sent via pgsql-hac
On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 23:30 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> It might well be, and the cost is low. But if you're talking about
> gitweb links or so, they'll still be invalid, because it would have to
> be renamed to "postgresql-old" or something like that...
Sure, that's fine.
It would just be ni
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:
> The new git repository will have different SHA1s for all of the commits,
> so any old SHA1s will be useless without the old repository.
>
> Hopefully nobody used links to specific commits (or SHA1s) pointing to
> the old git repository for anyth
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 23:29, Jeff Davis wrote:
> The new git repository will have different SHA1s for all of the commits,
> so any old SHA1s will be useless without the old repository.
>
> Hopefully nobody used links to specific commits (or SHA1s) pointing to
> the old git repository for anythin
The new git repository will have different SHA1s for all of the commits,
so any old SHA1s will be useless without the old repository.
Hopefully nobody used links to specific commits (or SHA1s) pointing to
the old git repository for anything important. But I found myself doing
so occasionally for u
15 matches
Mail list logo
