| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, 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: PostgreSQL 8.4 development plan |
| Date: | 2008-02-07 00:58:55 |
| Message-ID: | 20750.1202345935@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> O.k. I am not too interested in starting a whole war here (again) but
> for the record, we have what appears to be a perfectly working
> capability to move from cvs to svn. So *if* review board is something
> we really like, the SCM should not be the barrier.
I believe the compromise that's been reached for the moment is that
the core SCM will remain CVS, because everybody's favorite other SCM
can import from CVS but not necessarily from somebody else's favorite
other SCM. So a diff tool that doesn't work with CVS isn't going to be
especially useful for us.
I would imagine that the problem is mostly a lack of round tuits,
and that if we really fell in love with review board we could probably
teach it to handle diffs against CVS (especially seeing that the rest
of it besides post-review already works with CVS, supposedly).
So, again, the question is has anyone really used it? Is it the
best thing since sliced bread, or not so much?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Mielke | 2008-02-07 01:33:08 | Re: PostgreSQL 8.4 development plan |
| Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2008-02-07 00:01:15 | Re: Page-at-a-time Locking Considerations |