| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Joel Miller <joelwmiller(at)sbcglobal(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [SUGGESTION] CVSync |
| Date: | 2006-04-10 00:28:48 |
| Message-ID: | 4439A6C0.3020500@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
>>I don't know what unreasonable infrastructure you are referring to.
>>Building cvsup is a major pain, but installing and running it isn't, in
>>my experience. There's a package in Fedora Extras. Setting up cvsweb
>>against my cvsup repo is a fine idea - I wonder why I didn't think of that.
>>
>>
>
>Using someone else's binary isn't an attractive alternative for open
>source users.
>
>
>
Really? I haven't built the compiler, or make, or almost anything else
in the toolset we use on any of the platforms I build on (FC*, Windows,
Cygwin). So I use binaries built by other peoiple all the time. I bet
you do too. In any case, cvsup would only be a supplement to cvs, not a
replacement, and probably only of interest to developers, not users.
It's not like cvsup is proprietary.
And we support cvsup right now - it's particularly nice with buildfarm.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2006-04-10 01:07:58 | Re: Suggestion: Which Binary? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-04-09 21:54:56 | Re: Support Parallel Query Execution in Executor |