On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> I wonder if we should consider fixing some or all of these things on
>>>> the master CVS repository. I wouldn't be too eager to inject those
>>>> fake .0 commits for fear of breakage, but moving tags to where they
>>>> ought to have been all along seems like it might be a good thing to do
>>>> independent of git.
>
>>> Yeah, that's something I was wondering too. Applying these fixes to the
>>> master repository would also reduce the number of things we have to
>>> remember to do during the final conversion. OTOH, there's that risk of
>>> breaking something.
>
>> Hand-written patches that apply directly to the RCS files seem like
>> they'd be a risk for breakage, but I don't see why moving tags around
>> would be all that dangerous, especially in cases where you can do it
>> by running 'cvs' itself rather than 'rcs'. That should just be
>> routine stuff, no?
>
> Hrm, well, keep in mind that most of these problems were *created* by
> careless use of "cvs tag". At the moment I'm leaning towards the idea
> that we should leave the CVS repository as it is, rather than take any
> risk of making things worse.
I think that I have never, and am never likely ever to, hear anyone
describe you as careless. I feel pretty much 100% safe having you
retag those releases to match the tarballs.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company