From: | Gavin Sherry <swm(at)alcove(dot)com(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Warren Turkal <wt(at)penguintechs(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: SCMS question |
Date: | 2007-02-22 11:06:25 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.58.0702222200280.23431@linuxworld.com.au |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007, Tom Lane wrote:
> Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> > If we want to minimize the pain of changing and keep the same mode of
> > operation Subversion is definitely the right choice. Its goal was to provide
> > the same operational model as CVS and fix the implementation and architectural
> > problems.
>
> Erm ... but this is not an argument in favor of changing.
>
> AFAIR the only real disadvantage of CVS that we've run up against is
> that it's hard to shuffle files around to different directories without
> losing their change history (or more accurately, making the history
> harder to find). Now that is a pretty considerable annoyance on some
> days, but it's not sufficient reason to change to something else.
> I have no doubt that every other SCMS has annoyances of its own.
It's not a problem for the project but I personally experience pain with
CVS. I often want to take a bunch of commits and merge them into seperate
trees (like Greenplum DB or my private bitmap index tree). This is a lot
easier with the patch set based SCMs like darcs/monotone/git/etc.
Just my thoughts.
Gavin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavan Deolasee | 2007-02-22 12:07:29 | Re: HOT for PostgreSQL 8.3 |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-02-22 11:03:28 | Re: Column storage positions |