On 12/02/2010 07:43 AM, Lew wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>>> That said, such a process would also be a lot easier if the JDBC
>>>> driver wasn't in cvs ;)
>
> Lew wrote:
>>> Why is that a problem?
>
> David Fetter wrote:
>> Because to an excellent approximation, in practice, CVS does not
>> actually provide the ability to branch and merge, which means that
>> patches like Radoslav's are developed pretty much in isolation.
>
> That answer surprises me. Over the last ten years I've used CVS at many
> jobs, and I've used it to branch and merge lots of times. I found it
> roughly equivalent to, say, subversion in utility for that purpose.
I agree - it's roughly equivalent to svn (though w/o atomic commits).
Both suffer from the problem that interested contributors who have not
been granted commit access cannot branch. They cannot publish their work
with reference to mainline - they have to use patches or just copy the
whole HEAD into their own independent repository. Both options suck when
you want to track upstream HEAD and make sure that the upstream
developers can understand and follow your proposed changes.
I'd love to see JDBC move to git.postgresql.org or github, both to be
consistent with the rest of Pg and to make it easier to contribute.
postgresql is mirrored at github, and the same would make sense for jdbc
- keep the master on git.postgresql.org, mirror at github for easier
branch/fork/pull/merge .
--
Craig Ringer