Re: PostgreSQL 8.4 development plan

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 11:19:26 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.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 Hmm, the info on that last page might be out of date, but what it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.
>

That's reasonable. Although I am currently reviewing tailor which can
supposedly incrementally update the repo versus bulk convert each time.

> 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?

Yes but we are supposed to work smart not hard. CVS doesn't fit that
criteria when we have highly available, highly used and highly trusted
options available. We even have an option with an extremely low barrier
of entry (svn) and options that are proven amongst one of the (if not
the) most active FOSS projects on the planet (git).

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.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

--
The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/
PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL SPI Liaison | SPI Director |  PostgreSQL political pundit