From: | David Garamond <lists(at)zara(dot)6(dot)isreserved(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Dustin Sallings <dustin(at)spy(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: subversion vs cvs (Was: Re: linked list rewrite) |
Date: | 2004-03-24 21:22:52 |
Message-ID: | 4061FC2C.9050508@zara.6.isreserved.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Dustin Sallings wrote:
> On Mar 24, 2004, at 11:45, David Garamond wrote:
>
>> So one might ask, what *will* motivate a die-hard CVS user? A
>> real-close Bitkeeper clone? :-)
>
> Since it's illegal for anyone who uses Bitkeeper's free license to
> contribute to another project, does anyone know if there are any
> features in Bitkeeper missing from arch (specifically tla) that matter
> to developers? Or is there anything that may be a better match than arch?
From what I read here and there, BitKeeper excels primarily in merging
(good merging is apparently a very complex and hard problem) and GUI stuffs.
> Unfortunately, I have never and will never use Bitkeeper unless
> someone buys me a license for some reason. The distributed model seems
> like the only way to go for the open source development of the future.
Not necessarily. For small to medium projects, a centralized model might
work better.
--
dave
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Garamond | 2004-03-24 21:33:49 | Re: subversion vs cvs (Was: Re: [HACKERS] linked list rewrite) |
Previous Message | David Garamond | 2004-03-24 21:05:58 | PG's table inheritance and object table in Oracle |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Garamond | 2004-03-24 21:33:49 | Re: subversion vs cvs (Was: Re: [HACKERS] linked list rewrite) |
Previous Message | Markus Bertheau | 2004-03-24 20:49:09 | Re: unicode error and problem |