Thread: Old git repo
Hi! Are we ready to drop the old git mirror? The one that's still around (as postgresql-old.git) from before we migrated the main repository to git, and thus has the old hashes around. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 8:31 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > Are we ready to drop the old git mirror? The one that's still around > (as postgresql-old.git) from before we migrated the main repository to > git, and thus has the old hashes around. I see no reason to drop that ever, or at least not any time soon. What is it costing us? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 15:28, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 8:31 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: >> Are we ready to drop the old git mirror? The one that's still around >> (as postgresql-old.git) from before we migrated the main repository to >> git, and thus has the old hashes around. > > 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. Looking at it from the other side, what's the use-case for keeping it? If you want to "diff" against it or something like that, you can just do that against your local clone (that you already had - if you didn't, you shouldn't be using it at all)... -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
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: >> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 8:31 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: >>> Are we ready to drop the old git mirror? The one that's still around >>> (as postgresql-old.git) from before we migrated the main repository to >>> git, and thus has the old hashes around. >> >> 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. Well if it's clearly labeled "old" I don't think it should confuse anyone much. You could even tack one more commit on there adding a README file with a big ol' warning. > Looking at it from the other side, what's the use-case for keeping it? > If you want to "diff" against it or something like that, you can just > do that against your local clone (that you already had - if you > didn't, you shouldn't be using it at all)... 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. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
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.
regards, tom lane
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
On Thu, 2010-12-30 at 11:02 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > 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. The reason I originally asked for it to be kept around was not because it's hard to rebase, but because there might be references to SHA1s from that repo floating around. I don't think these would be very common, nor critical, but I know I wrote a few emails that included things like "look at this commit". Personally, my utility for the old repo is not much (if it was anything important, I wouldn't have relied on the unofficial repo). But we should probably give a little bit of warning for folks that might want to rebase or translate some old notes. Regards,Jeff Davis
Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> writes:
> Personally, my utility for the old repo is not much (if it was anything
> important, I wouldn't have relied on the unofficial repo). But we should
> probably give a little bit of warning for folks that might want to
> rebase or translate some old notes.
Well, I guess the question is how much warning. I suggested O(1 week)
but Robert seems to want O(1 year). As long as there's some agreed
deadline, I'm not very picky about what it is.
regards, tom lane
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 03:04, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> writes: >> Personally, my utility for the old repo is not much (if it was anything >> important, I wouldn't have relied on the unofficial repo). But we should >> probably give a little bit of warning for folks that might want to >> rebase or translate some old notes. > > Well, I guess the question is how much warning. I suggested O(1 week) > but Robert seems to want O(1 year). As long as there's some agreed > deadline, I'm not very picky about what it is. I don't need to get rid of it *now*, but I agree a deadline is good. How about we either say "when 9.1 is released", or we say "september 2011" because that's a year after we made the switch? -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 4:58 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 03:04, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> writes: >>> Personally, my utility for the old repo is not much (if it was anything >>> important, I wouldn't have relied on the unofficial repo). But we should >>> probably give a little bit of warning for folks that might want to >>> rebase or translate some old notes. >> >> Well, I guess the question is how much warning. I suggested O(1 week) >> but Robert seems to want O(1 year). As long as there's some agreed >> deadline, I'm not very picky about what it is. > > I don't need to get rid of it *now*, but I agree a deadline is good. > > How about we either say "when 9.1 is released", or we say "september > 2011" because that's a year after we made the switch? Either of those would be fine with me. Thanks! -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 13:10, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 4:58 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 03:04, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> writes: >>>> Personally, my utility for the old repo is not much (if it was anything >>>> important, I wouldn't have relied on the unofficial repo). But we should >>>> probably give a little bit of warning for folks that might want to >>>> rebase or translate some old notes. >>> >>> Well, I guess the question is how much warning. I suggested O(1 week) >>> but Robert seems to want O(1 year). As long as there's some agreed >>> deadline, I'm not very picky about what it is. >> >> I don't need to get rid of it *now*, but I agree a deadline is good. >> >> How about we either say "when 9.1 is released", or we say "september >> 2011" because that's a year after we made the switch? > > Either of those would be fine with me. Let's just decide it's "when 9.1 is released". And I put it on you to remind me when the time comes ;) -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/