On Monday 26 February 2007 13:50, Robert Treat wrote: > It's worth keeping in mind that one of the primary reasons we don't have a > different usage pattern is because CVS makes such a thing painful. Given > how much of development is done now, I have a feeling that the community > might well adopt a distributed development model and strongly benefit from > it given a tool that makes it manageable, but CVS will certainly never give > us that.
Well stated. > > We have the opportunity to > > wait and see what will emerge in the SCMS competition, and IMHO that's > > what we should do. There are many more-pressing things for us to spend > > time on right now than an SCMS conversion. > > 100% Agreed. I think SVN may provide a nicer migration path to the distributed SCMS simply because it supports the atomic changesets. At the very least, it could be a much shorter process than what the current conversion takes (about 3.25 hours on my laptop). Here's ([1]) another interesting bit. [1]http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/SVNMigration wt -- Warren Turkal (w00t) ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
