Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On tor, 2010-05-13 at 04:41 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>>> Right, and omitting tags was in fact one of the "features" of fromcvs
>>> that made us use it, because any tool that tries to convert tags will
>>> explode on our CVS tree, for reasons explained in the above paragraph.
>>>
>>> We have also discussed this in more detail about three times before.
>>>
>> Well, yes, but I have been wondering if this has to be an all or nothing
>> deal. How many tags can we not tie to a known tree in git? My suspicion
>> is we can probably identify most of them quite well. If we can that
>> would be nice.
>>
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-04/msg00036.php
>
>
Quite so. All the tags apparently causing problems are of no more than
historical interest to us. But more recent tags, especially for
currently maintained branches, are of interest.
cheers
andrew
