From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Joel Miller <joelwmiller(at)sbcglobal(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [SUGGESTION] CVSync |
Date: | 2006-03-23 23:39:11 |
Message-ID: | 4423319F.5040900@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
>Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
>
>
>>Any particular reason why straight CVS doesn't work for you? Are you
>>that interested in having the log comment locally?
>>
>>
>
>Personally, I'd really like to have a local repository copy, because
>I spend a *lot* of time with cvsweb etc --- but I'm sure my needs are
>several standard deviations away from the mean. So far I've been
>discouraged from setting up a repository by the unreasonable
>infrastructure needs of cvsup. So these alternatives do sound pretty
>interesting.
>
>Is csup protocol-compatible with cvsup? If so people could use it
>without Marc having to do anything. Has anyone got experience with
>it --- reliability, performance, etc?
>
>
>
>
Tom,
I don't know what unreasonable infrastructure you are referring to.
Building cvsup is a major pain, but installing and running it isn't, in
my experience. There's a package in Fedora Extras. Setting up cvsweb
against my cvsup repo is a fine idea - I wonder why I didn't think of that.
That's not to say that supporting cvsync isn't a good idea too.
TIMTOWTDI as we perl people like to say.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2006-03-23 23:39:23 | Re: Did this work in earlier version of Postgres? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-03-23 23:38:49 | Re: Did this work in earlier version of Postgres? |