"Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> Warren Turkal <wt@penguintechs.org> writes:
>> On Thursday 22 February 2007 00:05, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Not particularly. We keep hearing from various advocates that
>>> $foo-is-better-than-CVS, but the preferred value of $foo changes with
>>> amazing frequency, and none of the arguments seem to justify the pain
>>> of converting.
>
>> Some of the other options just seem to have much nicer user interfaces. I was
>> playing with Bacula and they just changed to Subversion. It really is much
>> nicer than the CVS they used to use. Git seems interesting as well. I guess
>> Subversion and git are the two big ones right now. What would you look for if
>> you were to check out new SCMSes? Would you want distributed like Git or
>> centralized like CVS/Subversion?
>
> I think you just made my point for me.
Not really. That's not a "preferred value of $foo changing" so much as
different styles of systems.
If we want to minimize the pain of changing and keep the same mode of
operation Subversion is definitely the right choice. Its goal was to provide
the same operational model as CVS and fix the implementation and architectural
problems. There isn't really any other mature SCM system in that style and
I've heard nothing but satisfaction from its users. It has definitely taken
over CVS's top spot in free software mindshare.
If we wanted to go to a whole new way of working using a decentralized system
which might fit better with our system of submitting patches then one of those
other systems like GIT might be better.
While I think our system of working independently and submitting patches
actually fits GIT better, if we're so conservative that we're still on CVS
despite its problems I suspect we're better off not trying to change
operational models at this point.
-- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com