[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker) writes: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Thu, 22 Feb 2007 17:38:26 +0100, Markus > Schiltknecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > markus> > So far, I'm getting the sense that there are a lot of > markus> > opinions on what replacement system to use, a bit carelessly > markus> > before having answered the above questions thoroughly. > markus> > markus> How did you get that impression? > > You said it yourself: Most PostgreSQL developers currently want to > stay with CVS.
I'm not certain that is, statistically, the case. > Unless there's a majority that wants to move on, I doubt there will be > a move. In the end, it has to be a group effort, or it will simply > not happen. The trouble is that there needs to be a sufficient plurality in favor of *a particular move onwards* in order for it to happen. Right now, what we see is: - Some that are fine with status quo - Some that are keen on Subversion - Others keen on Monotone - Others considering other options; Darcs, Git, Mercurial, Arch... There's no majority there, for sure. No plurality, either. There has been a "convulsion" of activity surrounding SCM in the last couple of years, and I think that the brief trouble that the Linux kernel had with Bitkeeper going away has been an *excellent* thing as it drew developers to work on the (long languishing) SCM problem. It looks as though there is a strong "plurality" of PostgreSQL developers that are waiting for some alternative to become dominant. I suspect THAT will never happen. I think instead, that we will see three or maybe four of the newer SCMs being jointly dominant. - Subversion has a clear body of happy-enough users for Subversion to continue. - Git, being the Linux kernel SCM, will continue unless some heretofore undiscovered fatal flaw bites it. - Mercurial seems to have enough user projects to be viable. (OpenSolaris, ALSA, Xen, ZFS for Linux are probably recognizable names...) It seems plausible that one of [Arch, Darcs, Monotone] would also survive. This contradicts the notion of there being any single dominant successor to CVS; if that were the case, that would make a migration clear. I think, instead, that we'll continue to see a multiplicity of choices, meaning that the best we can do is to eventually pick one. There isn't enough of a 'plurality' of support for any one SCM to allow that to take place now. -- (reverse (concatenate 'string "ofni.secnanifxunil" "@" "enworbbc")) http://linuxfinances.info/info/finances.html Rules of the Evil Overlord #189. "I will never tell the hero "Yes I was the one who did it, but you'll never be able to prove it to that incompetent old fool." Chances are, that incompetent old fool is standing behind the curtain." <http://www.eviloverlord.com/> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend