Обсуждение: pgsql: Removed ecpg Changelog file that was only there for historical
pgsql: Removed ecpg Changelog file that was only there for historical
От
meskes@postgresql.org (Michael Meskes)
Дата:
Log Message:
-----------
Removed ecpg Changelog file that was only there for historical reasons and isn't actively used anymore.
Removed Files:
-------------
pgsql/src/interfaces/ecpg:
ChangeLog
(http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/src/interfaces/ecpg/ChangeLog)
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 13:41, Michael Meskes <meskes@postgresql.org> wrote: > Log Message: > ----------- > Removed ecpg Changelog file that was only there for historical reasons and isn't actively used anymore. > > Removed Files: > ------------- > pgsql/src/interfaces/ecpg: > ChangeLog > (http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/src/interfaces/ecpg/ChangeLog) You probably want to do this on backbranches as well. Otherwise we're going to have to maintain it in some branches and not in some (which we *will* make mistakes if we try). And keeping it in there but not maintaining it is even worse... -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 01:45:05PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > You probably want to do this on backbranches as well. Otherwise we're > going to have to maintain it in some branches and not in some (which > we *will* make mistakes if we try). And keeping it in there but not > maintaining it is even worse... TTBOMK the file has never been maintained in backbranched but always carried the release time status. I fail to see the advantage here. Michael -- Michael Meskes Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org) Michael at BorussiaFan dot De, Meskes at (Debian|Postgresql) dot Org ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo/Skype: michaelmeskes, Jabber: meskes@jabber.org VfL Borussia! Forca Barca! Go SF 49ers! Use: Debian GNU/Linux, PostgreSQL
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 15:22, Michael Meskes <meskes@postgresql.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 01:45:05PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> You probably want to do this on backbranches as well. Otherwise we're >> going to have to maintain it in some branches and not in some (which >> we *will* make mistakes if we try). And keeping it in there but not >> maintaining it is even worse... > > TTBOMK the file has never been maintained in backbranched but always carried > the release time status. I fail to see the advantage here. Hmm, so we've basically been shipping out of date changelogs in backbranches? That seems Bad (TM).. Anyway, I vote for removing it there as well, but if you wan to keep it, I don't care *that* much. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/