Andy Colson wrote:
>>
>> Would a pre-requisite for any new SCM to be anointed as *the* new SCM
>> that the buildfarm can be reconfigured to run with it? Unless there
>> is an SCM2CVS option available I suppose... how many SCM's support
>> such a thing?
>
> I dont think the buildfarm needs to require CVS. The code can be
> changed in the buildfarm to just run 'svn up' or 'git up and go'
> (sorry, never used git so I had to guess at the command :-) ) right?
>
>
Wrong. The buildfarm has quite a lot of CVS-specific intelligence in it
that will need to be adapted to whatever we use to replace CVS. It is
very far from "plug and play". And I sure don't want to keep a CVS repo
just on account of the buildfarm. If and when the "one true postgres
SCM" changes, buildfarm should change along with it. Working out how is
just a part of the problems we'll face.
I have deliberately stayed out of this debate, since I have nothing much
new to say (and I observe that nothing much new has been said ;-) ). But
let me repeat a couple of things I have said previously:
I want to make a change in SCM once only in the foreseeable future. And
I'm in no great hurry. If I have a preference it is ever so slightly for
Mercurial, but that's just based on impression rather than solid
experience. I have used Subversion for quite some time - it has sorted
out some of the more obvious wrinkles that CVS presents, but I'm not
sure it's that much of a quantum leap that it's worht the trouble. I'll
be interested to see what Mark Miekle says after looking at all the systems.
cheers
andrew
