Re: SCMS question - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andrew Dunstan
Subject Re: SCMS question
Date
Msg-id 45DD8BDF.1070300@dunslane.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: SCMS question  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: SCMS question  (Markus Schiltknecht <markus@bluegap.ch>)
Re: SCMS question  (Warren Turkal <wt@penguintechs.org>)
Re: SCMS question  (Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.
>
>   

Oh, goody! My favourite non-productive debate! :-)

I work daily with SVN, and it certainly has some of the CVS pain points 
fixed, plus one or two nice gadgets. It's annoyed me a couple of times 
too, although I can't remember exactly how.

Let me throw another couple of data points into the mix.

1. The buildfarm is very heavily dependent on CVS, and any change to 
anything else will be quite painful. There is no guarantee that all the 
members even have SVN installed, let alone anything else. And someone 
would have to code and test significant client changes. That said, a lot 
of the tortuous logic could be removed - change detection would almost 
just resolve to comparing two tree numbers with SVN, for example.

2. Many people (and some buildfarm members) operate against mirrors of 
the main repo which are created with rsync or CVSup. I am not aware of 
any way to do the equivalent with SVN -  any info would be gratefully 
received. Of course, SVN is better at disconnected operation than CVS, 
so it might be a non-issue for many. Even so, it might be a pity to have 
to forego the facility.

I have no doubt we'll change someday to something better. I don't know 
what it is and I don't think we need to be in any hurry. This space is 
still very fluid.

cheers

andrew



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Pavan Deolasee"
Date:
Subject: Re: HOT for PostgreSQL 8.3
Next
From: Markus Schiltknecht
Date:
Subject: Re: tsearch in core patch, for inclusion