On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 07:24:21PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Mind you, I'm in favor of one.  A new SCM would make some other
> > development tasks easier. However, I'm reluctant to open the
> > can-of-worms which is the "what SCM should we use" discussion
> > again, and complicate something which we seem to have consensus
> > on.

We don't need to, as the tool is already in place.

> As near as I can tell, the arguments for a new SCM mostly apply to
> work which individual developers are doing outside the main tree.
> So, given the existence of stuff like git-cvsimport, I don't see a
> strong reason why anyone who wants to work that way can't already
> sync the core CVS with a local SCM-of-their-choice and get on with
> it.
> You're right that this is utterly unrelated to the scheduling
> question, anyway.

It's not even slightly unrelated.  It's a way of preventing bit-rot on
large patches and keeping them in sync :)

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 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
       choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not

Reply via email to