Thomas Hallgren wrote:
Another compelling reason to use SVN is that one of their long term
goals is to use an SQL backend.
That is about as far from a "compelling reason" to use a particular
version control system as I can imagine.
-Neil
---(end of broadcast)-
Joerg Hessdoerfer wrote:
Yes, some do. At least SVN (Subversion) can handle moves very well, and
especially it doesn't loose history on moves/renames.
SVN holds it's repo entries in a database like 'filesystem', which can be
backed by BDB4 or flat files (as of 1.1).
SVN has proven to be stable i
In an attempt to throw the authorities off his trail, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Lane)
transmitted:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Can this be discussed for 8.1?
>
> It's been discussed, and rejected, several times already. There
> aren't any alternatives that are enough better than
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>Can this be discussed for 8.1?
>
>
> It's been discussed, and rejected, several times already. There aren't
> any alternatives that are enough better than CVS to be worth the
> changeover effort.
The effort is not so big: http://cvs
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Can this be discussed for 8.1?
It's been discussed, and rejected, several times already. There aren't
any alternatives that are enough better than CVS to be worth the
changeover effort.
regards, tom lane
--
