Re: [PATCHES] CVS should die

Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> Neil Conway wrote:
>
>> Thomas Hallgren wrote:
>>
>>> Another compelling reason to use SVN is that one of their long term
>>> goals is to use an SQL backend.
>>
>>
>>
>> That is about as far from a "compelling reason" to use a particular
>> version control system as I can imagine.
>>
>>
>
> Yeah.
>
> I see these considerations as being important:
>
> . does tool x do what we need?
> . is tool x FOSS software?
> . is the benefit to be gained from moving to tool x worth the pain
> involved?
>
Duh! Bad wording on my part. I didn't mean that their future use of SQL
backend should be a criteria. So "compelling reason" was a bad choice of
words.

What I meant was, that at some point, we might be able to help the SVN
people reach their SQL objective and at the same time push for
PostgreSQL as the best choice. If PostgreSQL uses SVN (for the reasons
mentioned by Andrew), then some knowledge will be gained and
relationships established that might make such a collaboration very natural.

Once a PostgreSQL based backend is well tested and very stable,
PostgreSQL can make the switch to use it for their own production. From
an SVN standpoint, it must be a perfect reference to be able to say
"Look, PostgreSQL uses SVN with their own database to store their own
code". A better proof of concept doesn't exist! From a PostgreSQL
standpoint? Well SVN already have a high amount of users and it is
growing rapidly, i.e. the visibility is great.

It also struck me that the requirements for an SCM backend store must be
especially well handled by an MVCC type system. New data is added
frequently but very rarely updated or deleted.

Regards,
Thomas Hallgren