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 adop
On Sunday 25 February 2007 01:11, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Lastly, who really cares? Does it really matter? No. I would much rather
> > Warren (if he has the skills) put some effort into Patch Review.
>
> That's pretty much the bottom line. CVS is not so
Warren Turkal wrote:
> On Sunday 25 February 2007 23:23, Tom Lane wrote:
> > It was mentioned upthread that Josh has seen repeated problems with his
> > conversions.
>
> I am manually inspecting the diff between CVS tag REL_8_1_0 and SVN tag
> tags/REL_8_1_0/pgsql, and I am not finding any differ
Tom Lane wrote:
> Warren Turkal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Saturday 24 February 2007 23:11, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I also tend to think that a conversion will be easier in a year or two
>>> than it is today --- the problems noted upthread are certainly a
>>> heads-up that cvs2svn is not yet as
Hi,
Warren Turkal wrote:
Cvs2svn seems to make as much sense of CVS data as possible. The only real
problem I have seen is with regard to the malformed files I mentioned
earlier.
cvs2svn (1.x) still heavily relies on timestamps, which is certainly
correct in most cases. But they are switchin
On Sunday 25 February 2007 23:23, Tom Lane wrote:
> It was mentioned upthread that Josh has seen repeated problems with his
> conversions.
I am manually inspecting the diff between CVS tag REL_8_1_0 and SVN tag
tags/REL_8_1_0/pgsql, and I am not finding any differences in code short of
the $Id$-
On Sunday 25 February 2007 23:23, Tom Lane wrote:
> It was mentioned upthread that Josh has seen repeated problems with his
> conversions. I too would like to see some details about that. One
> thing that I personally would find to be a showstopper for any proposed
> switch is if it fails to main
Warren Turkal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Saturday 24 February 2007 23:11, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I also tend to think that a conversion will be easier in a year or two
>> than it is today --- the problems noted upthread are certainly a
>> heads-up that cvs2svn is not yet as robust as one could wi
On Saturday 24 February 2007 23:11, Tom Lane wrote:
> I also tend to think that a conversion will be easier in a year or two
> than it is today --- the problems noted upthread are certainly a
> heads-up that cvs2svn is not yet as robust as one could wish.
Cvs2svn seems to make as much sense of CVS
On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 06:28:20PM -0500 I heard the voice of
Andrew Dunstan, and lo! it spake thus:
>
> I don't really drink this koolaid, at least not to the extent of
> disavowing what I said above.
Oh, don't take my message as "You're wrong, you're not taking into
account [...]". It was mean
Matthew D. Fuller wrote:
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 10:27:38PM -0500 I heard the voice of
Andrew Dunstan, and lo! it spake thus:
This decision really belongs to the handful of people who do most of
the maintenance and live with most of any CVS pain that exists: such
as Tom, Bruce, Peter, Neil,
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 10:27:38PM -0500 I heard the voice of
Andrew Dunstan, and lo! it spake thus:
>
> This decision really belongs to the handful of people who do most of
> the maintenance and live with most of any CVS pain that exists: such
> as Tom, Bruce, Peter, Neil, Alvaro. Othe people hav
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
He didn't say *which* dev cycle. He is just enthusiastic and the reality
is this project is about 2 years overdue to run screaming from the
burning building that is CVS.
Does that mean we should change? Only if the people doing development
feel a need to change. However, t
Tom Lane wrote:
> I also tend to think that a conversion will be easier in a year or two
> than it is today --- the problems noted upthread are certainly a
> heads-up that cvs2svn is not yet as robust as one could wish.
Yes, which is why Markus is working on improved algorithms for Monotone.
--
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Lastly, who really cares? Does it really matter? No. I would much rather
> Warren (if he has the skills) put some effort into Patch Review.
That's pretty much the bottom line. CVS is not so broken that it's a
problem for us today. I have no doubt t
> Warren,
>
> what part of "We'd like to watch the SCM space for a while before making
> any decisions" don't you understand?
Andrew hold on,
He didn't say *which* dev cycle. He is just enthusiastic and the reality
is this project is about 2 years overdue to run screaming from the
burning build
On Saturday 24 February 2007 20:27, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> If we were to move now then subversion would probably be the best
> choice, on maturity grounds if nothing else. That might well not be true
> in a year or two. I don't want to move more than once, so waiting and
> seeing makes a lot of se
Warren Turkal wrote:
On Saturday 24 February 2007 19:51, Douglas McNaught wrote:
Not to mention that the beginning of feature freeze sounds like a
particularly bad time to do this. :)
I never encouraged doing it right now, but I'd like to help when and if it
does happen. I think at t
Douglas McNaught wrote:
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Warren Turkal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
What would you all think about moving to SVN if the anon CVS checkout can be
made to work? I'll even volunteer to set it up.
What's with the high pressure sales tactics? It's
On Saturday 24 February 2007 19:51, Douglas McNaught wrote:
> Not to mention that the beginning of feature freeze sounds like a
> particularly bad time to do this. :)
I never encouraged doing it right now, but I'd like to help when and if it
does happen. I think at the begginning of a new dev cy
On Saturday 24 February 2007 19:18, Tom Lane wrote:
> What's with the high pressure sales tactics? It's already been
> explained to you that the key PG developers feel no particular reason
> to change at this time.
I am not trying to be high pressure. I just wanted to give something back to
the
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Warren Turkal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> What would you all think about moving to SVN if the anon CVS checkout can be
>> made to work? I'll even volunteer to set it up.
>
> What's with the high pressure sales tactics? It's already been
> explained to yo
Warren Turkal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What would you all think about moving to SVN if the anon CVS checkout can be
> made to work? I'll even volunteer to set it up.
What's with the high pressure sales tactics? It's already been
explained to you that the key PG developers feel no particular
On Friday 23 February 2007 11:11, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> If you are looking for a CVS replacement, that replacement is SVN. I
> don't think anyone can reasonably argue against that statement.
It seems to me that the best reason for keeping CVS is that the build farm
uses it. There are solutions
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 09:12:27AM -0500, Chris Browne wrote:
>> 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.
Actually it has. The problem
On Feb 23, 2007, at 11:24 , Andreas Pflug wrote:
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
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 09:12:27AM -0500, Chris Browne wrote:
> 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.
Actually, I think that if one of the SCMs provides some kind of
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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker) writes:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Thu, 22 Feb 2007 17:38:26 +0100, Markus
> Schiltknecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> markus> > So far, I'm getting the sense that there are a lot of
> markus> > opinions on what replacement system to use,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Dunstan) writes:
> Tom has pointed out, our biggest pain point is
> the occasional wish to move things across directories.
That's the biggest pain that people are normally aware of.
There are things that people don't even bother to try to do with CVS
because they are so
30 matches
Mail list logo
