Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> If we want to minimize the pain of changing and keep the same mode of
> operation Subversion is definitely the right choice. Its goal was to provide
> the same operational model as CVS and fix the implementation and architectural
> problems.
Erm ... but this is not an argument in favor of changing.
AFAIR the only real disadvantage of CVS that we've run up against is
that it's hard to shuffle files around to different directories without
losing their change history (or more accurately, making the history
harder to find). Now that is a pretty considerable annoyance on some
days, but it's not sufficient reason to change to something else.
I have no doubt that every other SCMS has annoyances of its own.
> ... if we're so conservative that we're still on CVS
> despite its problems I suspect we're better off not trying to change
> operational models at this point.
Conservatism is kind of inherent in our problem domain, no? I mean,
you might have great arguments why XYZ is the best operating system
since sliced bread and everyone should migrate to it immediately, and
you might even be right --- but you'd be foolish to expect quick uptake
by the average DBA. There is great value in being familiar with one's
tools.
regards, tom lane
