Re: [PATCHES] CVS should die

On Fri, 2004-11-05 at 15:37 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> One of the reasons I'm disinclined to move is that none of the proposed
> alternatives seem especially, um, mature.  AFAIK this project has never
> had CVS lose any data in the eight years we've used it.  I'd want a
> comparable level of trust in any replacement SCM, and I haven't got it.

A very sane reason.  I've lost my share of stuff with SVN in trialling
it, but we are switching our company over to Arch, which seems to offer
significantly more benefits.  From our trialling of it, I think it has a
more robust and mature repository structure too.

Watching the PostgreSQL team developing I would think that Arch would
provide much better support for the developers than SVN would.

Switching to Arch is more work, but it also offers a lot more benefits -
including the opportunity for individuals to maintain their own trees,
and be able to work out which patchsets from someone else's tree have
not been applied.  If anything is going to become the open-source
BitKeeper it will be this, I think.

Cheers,                Andrew.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew @ Catalyst .Net .NZ  Ltd,  PO Box 11-053, Manners St,  Wellington
WEB: http://catalyst.net.nz/            PHYS: Level 2, 150-154 Willis St
DDI: +64(4)803-2201      MOB: +64(272)DEBIAN      OFFICE: +64(4)499-2267                    Planning an election?  Call
us!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------