| From: | Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, 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 18:10:53 |
| Message-ID: | 47AB49AD.9060803@kaltenbrunner.cc |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 14:00:33 -0300
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> Joshua D. Drake escribió:
>>
>>> I am not arguing any particular solution but home brewing a
>>> solution so people can stay on what is definitely a dying SCM is
>>> dumb. There are so many tools available to us that we *don't* have
>>> to modify, bend, break or if you like, improve that any argument
>>> outside of, "We are used to CVS" is just hand waving and that
>>> argument is sad.
>> Actually, in using Subversion I've found it broken enough that a
>> migration to it does not offer that much of an advantage over staying
>> with CVS.
>
> I repeat. I am not arguing a particular solution. I am arguing against
> creating more internal infrastructure and the relevant support
> requirements when other solutions exist.
yep - I just got a prototype install of review board running against
anoncvs.postgresql.org and it just seems to work fine at a first glance
using CVS (and postgresql for that matter). So no need for any strange
workarounds :-)
Stefan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-02-07 18:14:55 | Re: PostgreSQL 8.4 development plan |
| Previous Message | Oleg Bartunov | 2008-02-07 18:07:06 | Re: Problem with site doc search |