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

Re: subversion vs cvs

From: David Garamond <lists(at)zara(dot)6(dot)isreserved(dot)com>
To:
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: subversion vs cvs
Date: 2004-03-24 19:40:41
Message-ID: 4061E439.2070401@zara.6.isreserved.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-generalpgsql-hackers
Sailesh Krishnamurthy wrote:
> I've had plenty of pain with cvs in terms of directories not being
> first-class etc .. but I don't really contribute to pgsql so you guys
> probably don't have the same experience. 
> 
> I was just curious as it looks like eventually subversion (or arch :-)
> will be an alternative to cvs. 

Eventually it (either subversion, or arch, or something else) will. You 
just have to be patient :-) The movement will be very slow, we'll 
probably see Apache 1.3.x disappear first before we see CVS disappear.

It _is_ frustrating to have to use something new, especially something 
so frequently used like source control tool.

-- 
dave


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: David GaramondDate: 2004-03-24 19:45:26
Subject: Re: subversion vs cvs (Was: Re: linked list rewrite)
Previous:From: Richard HuxtonDate: 2004-03-24 18:53:07
Subject: LOOK - KITTENS! (was Re: pg_advisor schema proof of concept)

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Anony MousDate: 2004-03-24 19:42:43
Subject: pg_dump "what if?"
Previous:From: Peter LangDate: 2004-03-24 18:59:21
Subject: pg_dump "what if?"

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