Peter Eisentraut wrote:
There is also a big difference between supporting some proprietary
software and making proprietary software a de facto requirement for
participating in the development effort.
Just to complete the information on this, I have it on good authority
(i.e. from Larry
On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 09:30:09AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
I haven't seen any particular reason why we should adopt another SCM.
Perhaps BitKeeper or SubVersion would be better for our purposes than
CVS, but are they enough better to justify the switchover costs?
Reinoud van Leeuwen wrote:
Why? I understood that using BitKeeper for free for Open Source
projects is allowed. (but IANAL).
It is available (on many platforms). It works great. Once you use
changesets you'll never want to go back to cvs.
There is a world of a difference between being free
Reinoud van Leeuwen said:
On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 09:30:09AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
I haven't seen any particular reason why we should adopt another
SCM. Perhaps BitKeeper or SubVersion would be better for our
purposes than CVS, but are they enough better to justify
Tom Lane wrote:
I haven't seen any particular reason why we should adopt another SCM.
Perhaps BitKeeper or SubVersion would be better for our purposes than
CVS, but are they enough better to justify the switchover costs?
BitKeeper ist not open source, so it's out of the question for most
Hi,
On Monday 09 August 2004 09:30, you wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
I haven't seen any particular reason why we should adopt another SCM.
Perhaps BitKeeper or SubVersion would be better for our purposes than
CVS, but are they enough better to justify the switchover costs?
BitKeeper ist not
On 08/09/04:32/1, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
BitKeeper ist not open source, so it's out of the question for most
people. Subversion is shockingly unstable. I'm very open for
something that replaces CVS, but I'd rather not use any than one of
these two.
From my casual usage of svn, I haven't
On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 01:18:02AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Maybe a better SCM could help with this, but I doubt it.
I haven't seen any particular reason why we should adopt another SCM.
Perhaps BitKeeper or SubVersion would be better for our
On Sat, Aug 07, 2004 at 12:38:10PM +0200, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Subversion and arch have been mentioned, but so far there is no
compelling reason to change. It'd take convincing at least a couple
of core hackers to get the ball rolling ...
Well, I think having seen
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
I don't think it was a problem of committers. To me it was a problem of
reviewers. Those are very scarce (for the bigger items it's mostly only
Tom). Maybe a better SCM could help with this, but I doubt it. As an
example, I did read the autovacuum patch, but I had no
10 matches
Mail list logo
