Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Arch (was RE: Refactoring of command.c )

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Dominic J(dot) Eidson" <sauron(at)the-infinite(dot)org>
Cc: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>,pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Arch (was RE: Refactoring of command.c )
Date: 2002-02-28 04:44:23
Message-ID: 11072.1014871463@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"Dominic J. Eidson" <sauron(at)the-infinite(dot)org> writes:
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
>> Sounds like it's time to move to using 'arch':

> I see this going down the road of a religious debate, and to prove the
> point, I bring up BitKeeper:

Hmm.  I'd surely be the last to claim that CVS is the be-all and end-all
of software archiving systems.  But is BitKeeper, or arch, or anything
else enough better to justify the pain of switching?  This is intended
as an honest question, not flamebait --- I haven't looked closely at
the alternatives.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2002-02-28 05:10:24
Subject: elog() patch
Previous:From: Dominic J. EidsonDate: 2002-02-28 04:25:31
Subject: Re: Arch (was RE: Refactoring of command.c )

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group