Chris Browne wrote:
> 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.
It probably _can_ never happen, because that would have to be a
one-for-all solution, embracing both centric and distributed
repositories, combining contradictionary goals. So the first question to
answer is: Will PostgreSQL continue with a single repository (the
project was managed very successfully this way for a long time), or try
a distributed approach. IMHO facts would quote for a central repository,
which would drastically reduce SCM candidates.
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster