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.
Regards, Andreas ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
