| From: | Dustin Sallings <dustin(at)spy(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Garamond <lists(at)zara(dot)6(dot)isreserved(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: subversion vs cvs (Was: Re: linked list rewrite) |
| Date: | 2004-03-24 19:58:10 |
| Message-ID: | 93A4A32E-7DCD-11D8-8B80-000393CFE6B8@spy.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Mar 24, 2004, at 11:45, David Garamond wrote:
> So one might ask, what *will* motivate a die-hard CVS user? A
> real-close Bitkeeper clone? :-)
Since it's illegal for anyone who uses Bitkeeper's free license to
contribute to another project, does anyone know if there are any
features in Bitkeeper missing from arch (specifically tla) that matter
to developers? Or is there anything that may be a better match than
arch?
Unfortunately, I have never and will never use Bitkeeper unless
someone buys me a license for some reason. The distributed model seems
like the only way to go for the open source development of the future.
--
Dustin Sallings
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dustin Sallings | 2004-03-24 20:25:52 | Re: pg_dump "what if?" |
| Previous Message | David Garamond | 2004-03-24 19:45:26 | Re: subversion vs cvs (Was: Re: linked list rewrite) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Hammond | 2004-03-24 20:36:20 | rotatelogs integration in pg_ctl |
| Previous Message | David Garamond | 2004-03-24 19:45:26 | Re: subversion vs cvs (Was: Re: linked list rewrite) |