Re: Fwd: PostgreSQL 8.4 development plan

On Monday 11 February 2008 18:18, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> 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.
>

Switching from CVS to SVN is like switching from myisam to innodb; yeah, it's 
an improvement, but you're still working with something fundementally broken. 

Oooh...burn....hiss :-P

-- 
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL