On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 06:19:42PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > 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. > > > >http://repo.or.cz/w/PostgreSQL.git > > > >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.
I'm not picking a DSCM. I'm saying we already have tools in place for a DSCM *without* having a "flag day." If Mercurial has a similar migration/legacy support path, then by all means, let's try that out, too. :) Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend