| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Feature Freeze date for 8.4 |
| Date: | 2007-10-23 23:24:21 |
| Message-ID: | 5779.1193181861@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> Mind you, I'm in favor of one. A new SCM would make some other development
> tasks easier. However, I'm reluctant to open the can-of-worms which is the
> "what SCM should we use" discussion again, and complicate something which
> we seem to have consensus on.
As near as I can tell, the arguments for a new SCM mostly apply to work
which individual developers are doing outside the main tree. So, given
the existence of stuff like git-cvsimport, I don't see a strong reason
why anyone who wants to work that way can't already sync the core CVS
with a local SCM-of-their-choice and get on with it.
You're right that this is utterly unrelated to the scheduling question,
anyway.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-10-23 23:42:20 | Re: Feature Freeze date for 8.4 |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2007-10-23 23:19:22 | Re: Feature Freeze date for 8.4 |