Hi,
On Monday 09 August 2004 09:30, you wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > I haven't seen any particular reason why we should adopt another SCM.
> > Perhaps BitKeeper or SubVersion would be better for our purposes than
> > CVS, but are they enough better to justify the switchover costs?
>
> BitKeeper ist not open source, so it's out of the question for most
> people. Subversion is shockingly unstable. I'm very open for
> something that replaces CVS, but I'd rather not use any than one of
> these two.
Wow, that's a remark. 'Shockingly unstable'... I wonder where you got that
from? As someone who is using Subversion very heavily in production
environments, with code repositories which outgrow PostgreSQL's codebase size
by factors of up to 20 (mainly due to being binary source code for a strange
development platform) and having a very high update rate I *never* had any
problems except one or two short periods of inaccessibility due to web server
probs.
I would really like you to substantiate those claims, and please not from the
pre-beta time area.
'K, 'nough said!
Greetings,Joerg Hessdoerfer
--
Leading SW developer - S.E.A GmbH
Mail: joerg.hessdoerfer@sea-gmbh.com
WWW: http://www.sea-gmbh.com