On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 07:24:21PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> 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 :)
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
