On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 15:28, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> 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 people grab
>>> it by mistake - it adds a bit to confusion.
>
>> I realize it's not as "official" as the CVS repository was, but I
>> still think we ought to hold onto it for a year or two. Maybe no one
>> will ever look at it again, but I'm not prepared to bet on that.
>
> 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 have a local clone, such a clone is
> self-sufficient. And more to the point, it seems quite unlikely that
> anyone is still working with such a clone rather than having rebased
> by now.
>
> We should wait a week or so to see if anyone does pipe up and say they
> still use that repo; but in the absence of such feedback, it should go.
Well, I still have at least on repo against the old respository, which
is why I mentioned it. Maybe there's nothing valuable in there and
maybe I don't need the origin anyway, but I haven't bothered to check
it over carefully yet because, well, there's no rush to clean up my
old repositories, and there is a rush to finish 9.1 development real
soon now. I can, of course, carve out time to deal with it, but I
think that it's a poor use of time and that the risk of confusion that
you and Magnus are postulating is mostly hypothetical.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
