| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| 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 16:19:26 |
| Message-ID: | 4870.1202401166@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 06:50:34PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hmm, the info on that last page might be out of date, but what it says is
>> that the only SCMS they really support 100% is SVN. The other ones they
>> claim support for don't work [well/at all] with the post-review tool.
> 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.
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. Hey, it's
an open source project, right?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2008-02-07 16:20:49 | Re: 8.3 / 8.2.6 restore comparison |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2008-02-07 16:11:32 | Re: 8.3 / 8.2.6 restore comparison |