From: | Warren Turkal <wt(at)penguintechs(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Subject: | Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: SCMS question |
Date: | 2007-02-26 21:48:49 |
Message-ID: | 200702261448.49601.wt@penguintechs.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Monday 26 February 2007 13:50, Robert Treat wrote:
> It's worth keeping in mind that one of the primary reasons we don't have a
> different usage pattern is because CVS makes such a thing painful. Given
> how much of development is done now, I have a feeling that the community
> might well adopt a distributed development model and strongly benefit from
> it given a tool that makes it manageable, but CVS will certainly never give
> us that.
Well stated.
> > We have the opportunity to
> > wait and see what will emerge in the SCMS competition, and IMHO that's
> > what we should do. There are many more-pressing things for us to spend
> > time on right now than an SCMS conversion.
>
> 100% Agreed.
I think SVN may provide a nicer migration path to the distributed SCMS simply
because it supports the atomic changesets. At the very least, it could be a
much shorter process than what the current conversion takes (about 3.25 hours
on my laptop). Here's ([1]) another interesting bit.
[1]http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/SVNMigration
wt
--
Warren Turkal (w00t)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | markwkm | 2007-02-26 21:59:55 | Re: [HACKERS] Seeking Google SoC Mentors |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-02-26 21:37:42 | Re: Acclerating INSERT/UPDATE using UPS |