On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 06:19:42PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> David Fetter wrote:
> >On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 04:59:51PM -0400, Chris Browne wrote:
> >>tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us (Tom Lane) writes:
> >>>Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> >>>
> >>>>I'd suggest we have multiple checkpoints during the cycle.
> >>>>Checkpoint is a "patch queue blitz" where we stop developing and
> >>>>reduce the queue to nothing. Perhaps a two-week period where
> >>>>everybody helps reduce the queue, not just Tom and Bruce. Every
> >>>>outstanding patch gets told what they need to do in order to get
> >>>>it committed. FF is then just the last in a series of
> >>>>checkpoints. Suggest we do a checkpoint every 2 months.
> >>>>
> >>>I like this idea ...
> >>>
> >>Don't we need to have a background writer process to gradually
> >>flush this data so that checkpoints aren't so massive? ;-)
> >>
> >
> >I'm proposing a DSCM with easy branching and merging to implement
> >this background writer process :)
> >
> >The one below is already available, so we don't have to do a "flag
> >day" with it.
> >
> >http://repo.or.cz/w/PostgreSQL.git
> >
> >There are git-cvsimport and git-cvsexport utilities which make
> >communication between the legacy SCM and the DSCM straight-forward.
>
> You are way ahead of us here. And my vote *still* goes to Mercurial,
> if we're picking SCMs.
I'm not picking a DSCM. I'm saying we already have tools in place for
a DSCM *without* having a "flag day." If Mercurial has a similar
migration/legacy support path, then by all means, let's try that out,
too. :)
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate