Gaetano Mendola wrote:
> Currently some changes are back ported to old branches ( BTW, why not to
> switch to use "subversion"? ) so I don't think this actualy a big issue
The only changes that are presently backported are bug fixes that the
committing developer feels confident will not cause a regression (for
this reason, it is common practice to commit a simplified version of a
change to the stable release series, and a more complete rewrite to
-devel). It would require significantly more work to backport larger
changes -- both due to code drift in the development branch, and the
likelihood that larger changes that introduce new features will require
a lot more testing than small changes that fix critical, localized bugs.
(Of course, one option for users who want new features in a stable
release series is to hire a company to backport them for you. It is
already common practice for some companies to support PostgreSQL
releases for longer than the development group is prepared to do.)
As for using SVN, that's been suggested before (there was a long thread
on it recently). I wouldn't object, although (a) I don't see the rush,
CVS works fine for us AFAIK (b) arch might be worth considering as an
alternative.
-Neil
