| From: | Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dave Page <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: {**Spam**} Re: PostgreSQL 8.4 development plan |
| Date: | 2008-02-07 19:29:50 |
| Message-ID: | 200802072029.51468.dfontaine@hi-media.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Le Thursday 07 February 2008 17:19:26 Tom Lane, vous avez écrit :
> > Not having looked into exactly how it works and if it's something we
> > want, but if we want to, any reason we can't just point it at the svn
> > mirror?
>
> Synchronization problems scare me.
AIUI we're talking about one way synchronization (from CVS to SVN) only, and
that's considering review-board is not able to do CVS directly (which seems
wrong).
The quick doc reading I've made showed a read-only tool at the SCM side ---
the accepted patch won't get commited for you by the tool.
> The point I tried to make earlier was that if we actually started to
> rely on such a tool, we'd want to fix it to talk to CVS.
Others are pointing it does in fact talk to CVS even if the documentation
about this is... to be written.
Regards,
--
dim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stefan Kaltenbrunner | 2008-02-07 19:42:02 | Re: {**Spam**} Re: PostgreSQL 8.4 development plan |
| Previous Message | Dawid Kuroczko | 2008-02-07 19:22:42 | Re: configurability of OOM killer |