Hi,
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-12/msg01879.php
Thanks for the link. I'm assuming you've adjusted the tags to fit a
single commit.
Out of curiosity: do you think (or have evidence that) this is the only
tag that spans multiple commits?
>> In what way do you consider the tags "broken"?
>
> The tag applies to different commits on different files.
That's perfectly valid for CVS (and can be represented in subversion as
well). Such a tag cannot (easily) be converted to git, though (nor
mercurial or monotone), where tags are attached to a single commit.
>> (As CVS does not
>> guarantee any inter-file consistency, I don't think one can speak of
>> brokenness at all.
>
> Just because CVS doesn't guarantee it, it doesn't mean it's not broken.
It depends on your understanding of what a tag is. CVS and subversion
certainly have a different understanding from yours (and sometimes tout
this as a feature): their tags can easily span multiple commits.
You (as well as myself, BTW) seem to think of a tag like something
that's attached to a single commit.
> Otherwise, any possible random permutation of files would be a non-broken
> checkout by your definition.
Note that this is not necessarily my definition, rather CVS's (or that
of subversion). And yes, CVS repositories can be pretty badly screwed.
Regards
Markus Wanner
