Re: Postgres development model (was Re: CVS comment)

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>
Cc: Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Postgres development model (was Re: CVS comment)
Date: 2004-08-09 07:30:09
Message-ID: 200408090930.09373.peter_e@gmx.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> I haven't seen any particular reason why we should adopt another SCM.
> Perhaps BitKeeper or SubVersion would be better for our purposes than
> CVS, but are they enough better to justify the switchover costs?

BitKeeper ist not open source, so it's out of the question for most
people. Subversion is shockingly unstable. I'm very open for
something that replaces CVS, but I'd rather not use any than one of
these two.

--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2004-08-09 08:17:02 Re: Fwd: init scripts and su
Previous Message Dave Page 2004-08-09 07:30:01 Re: Windows binary in the beta directory?