| From: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | 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>, Warren Turkal <wt(at)penguintechs(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: SCMS question |
| Date: | 2007-02-26 20:50:04 |
| Message-ID: | 200702261550.04899.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sunday 25 February 2007 01:11, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> > Lastly, who really cares? Does it really matter? No. I would much rather
> > Warren (if he has the skills) put some effort into Patch Review.
>
> That's pretty much the bottom line. CVS is not so broken that it's a
> problem for us today. I have no doubt that it could be a problem if we
> had different usage patterns, but we don't.
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.
> 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.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jonah H. Harris | 2007-02-26 21:05:07 | Re: Proposal for Implenting read-only queries during wal replay (SoC 2007) |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-02-26 20:49:34 | Re: autovacuum next steps, take 2 |