| From: | "Brendan Jurd" <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jan Wieck" <JanWieck(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "Markus Bertheau" <mbertheau(dot)pg(at)googlemail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL 8.4 development plan |
| Date: | 2008-02-09 22:44:25 |
| Message-ID: | 37ed240d0802091444j1b89b918m6ff7ab1d47dd2619@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Feb 10, 2008 8:58 AM, Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
> I wonder if the efforts to provide mirrors for many different systems can hurt later down the road. It is pretty obvious that amost every current system has options to convert from or to mirror a CVS repository. But what if we someday really want to use something else as the master repository? Are we ready to accept losing unsupported mirrors at that time, or will that actually influence the choice (I think that it should not ... but I can hear the outcry already).
If an SCM comes along so compelling in its feature set that it
convinces the Postgres committers to abandon CVS, I don't think anyone
will complain about having to use it =)
Seriously though, I think the main impetus for having these mirrors is
that developers don't want to work with CVS. If the master repos was
upgraded to a modern SCM, the importance of having mirrors would
dwindle.
Cheers,
BJ
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Smith | 2008-02-10 00:40:04 | Re: PostgreSQL 8.4 development plan |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-02-09 22:26:15 | Re: "AS" by the syntax of table reference.(8.4 proposal) |