Tom Lane escribió:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> > Tom Lane escribi�:
> >> What was in the back of my mind was that we'd go around and mass-remove
> >> $PostgreSQL$ (and any other lurking tags), but only from HEAD and only
> >> after the repo conversion. Although just before it would be okay too.
>
> > You mean we would remove them from CVS? I don't think that's
> > necessarily a good idea; it'd be massive changes for no good reason.
>
> Uh, how is it different from any other mass edit, such as our annual
> copyright-year updates, or pgindent runs?
Well, the other mass edits have a purpose. This one would be only to
help the migration.
> > My idea was to remove them from the repository that would be used for the
> > conversion (I think that means editing the ,v files),
>
> Ick ... I'm willing to tolerate a few small manual ,v edits if we have
> to do it to make tags consistent or something like that. I don't think
> we should be doing massive edits of that kind.
Yeah, that idea wasn't all that great after all.
> But anyway, that's not the interesting point. The interesting point is
> what about the historical aspect of it, not whether we want to dispense
> with the tags going forward. Should our repo conversion try to
> represent the historical states of the files including the tag strings?
Since we're going to lose them functionally after the conversion, it
doesn't seem that they serve any purpose. After all, they will not
represent anything on the new repository.
The problem is that they are a problem for the conversion. Are they
expanded before or after the commit? Because the very expansion causes
the file to change identity, files being identified by the SHA1 sum of
their contents.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support