Re: [PATCHES] CVS should die

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Ian Barwick <barwick(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] CVS should die
Date: 2004-11-05 20:37:54
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Ian Barwick <barwick(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Aha, glad I'm not the only one. Version 1.1 has a flat-file based
> backend which is not prone to BDB-permission-related problems, see:
> .
> It's only been around a few months though and the docs mention
> possible issues with scalability.

One of the reasons I'm disinclined to move is that none of the proposed
alternatives seem especially, um, mature. AFAIK this project has never
had CVS lose any data in the eight years we've used it. I'd want a
comparable level of trust in any replacement SCM, and I haven't got it.

regards, tom lane

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2004-11-05 20:40:59 Re: [PATCHES] CVS should die
Previous Message Travis P 2004-11-05 20:19:51 Re: [PATCHES] CVS should die

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2004-11-05 21:31:14 Re: GiST: memory allocation, cleanup
Previous Message Gaetano Mendola 2004-11-05 19:38:51 Re: [PATCHES] CVS should die