David Fetter wrote:
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 04:59:51PM -0400, Chris Browne wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Lane) writes:
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I'd suggest we have multiple checkpoints during the cycle.
Checkpoint is a "patch queue blitz" where we stop developing and
reduce the queue to nothing. Perhaps a two-week period where
everybody helps reduce the queue, not just Tom and Bruce. Every
outstanding patch gets told what they need to do in order to get
it committed. FF is then just the last in a series of
checkpoints. Suggest we do a checkpoint every 2 months.
I like this idea ...
Don't we need to have a background writer process to gradually flush
this data so that checkpoints aren't so massive?  ;-)

I'm proposing a DSCM with easy branching and merging to implement this
background writer process :)

The one below is already available, so we don't have to do a "flag
day" with it.


There are git-cvsimport and git-cvsexport utilities which make
communication between the legacy SCM and the DSCM straight-forward.

You are way ahead of us here. And my vote *still* goes to Mercurial, if we're picking SCMs.



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at


Reply via email to