On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 01:18:02AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Maybe a better SCM could help with this, but I doubt it. > > 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? > I doubt it.
CVS has it problems, and there are other SCM packages available that address those, but the but the main problem for postgresql is shortage of uber-hackers, as Tom says. Once that problems solved (more good coders seasoned in the codebase) then it might be time to switch. By then, they'll be even easier to use. ;-) Ross -- Ross Reedstrom, Ph.D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Research Scientist phone: 713-348-6166 The Connexions Project http://cnx.rice.edu fax: 713-348-3665 Rice University MS-375, Houston, TX 77005 GPG Key fingerprint = F023 82C8 9B0E 2CC6 0D8E F888 D3AE 810E 88F0 BEDE ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
