> I see this going down the road of a religious debate, and to prove the
> point, I bring up BitKeeper:
>
> http://www.bitkeeper.com
I admit I don't know much about bitkeeper, except its license is a bit
weird...
> > http://www.regexps.com/#arch
> >
> > Supports everything that CVS doesn't, including rename events...
>
> So does BitKeeper :)
>
> > BTW - I'm not _seriously_ suggesting this change - but it would be cool,
> > wouldn't it?
> >
> > People could start their own local branches which are part of the global
> > namespace, easily merge them in, etc...
>
> This seems quite pointless for PostgreSQL's development.
NOT TRUE!!!
Imagine you want to develop a massive new feature for Postgres. You just
create a branch on your own machine, do all your changes, commits, etc. and
keep it current with the main branch. Then, you can merge it back into the
main tree... That way you can have a history of commits on your own branch
of the repo!
Disclaimer: Have only read docs, not actually _used_ 'arch'... :(
Chris
