You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@subversion.apache.org by kf...@collab.net on 2004/11/05 16:10:01 UTC
Re: postgresql project considering svn
"Merlin Moncure" <me...@rcsonline.com> writes:
> Right now, the postgresql project is considering (again) adopting svn
> for their scm. Some of the key people remain skeptical, but at least
> one of the high profile developers is willing to give it a shot.
>
> The postgresql people would of course like it if they could host their
> repo on their own database. I think that if and when you guys make that
> possible, they will probably switch.
If that's the criterion, they're going to wait a long time. SQL back
end is a big project (worthwhile, of course, but biiiiig).
I'm not sure why it would be relevant, though. I mean, suppose
Subversion *only* shipped with the FSFS back end. Would that mean
they wouldn't want to serve their sources from a Subversion
repository? I don't think so. (For all we know they might choose
FSFS anyway.)
-Karl
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: postgresql project considering svn
Posted by kf...@collab.net.
Travis P <sv...@castle.fastmail.fm> writes:
> This is the real Issue for one of the primary developers and
> commiters, Tom Lane:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2004-11/msg00183.php
> Summary: he's never lost data with CVS and does not have the same
> confidence in the alternatives
This is fair. CVS is more mature than Subversion. Of course, they
should make regular backups and all that, but we know how often that
really happens :-)...
> This message gives you an idea how the thread started (Tom Lane didn't
> want to move a file and lose history):
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2004-11/msg00135.php
> (and look at Tom's follow-up)
Thanks for the links!
-Karl
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: postgresql project considering svn
Posted by Travis P <sv...@castle.fastmail.fm>.
On Nov 5, 2004, at 10:10 AM, kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> "Merlin Moncure" <me...@rcsonline.com> writes:
>> The postgresql people would of course like it if they could host their
>> repo on their own database. I think that if and when you guys make
>> that
>> possible, they will probably switch.
>
> If that's the criterion, they're going to wait a long time. SQL back
> end is a big project (worthwhile, of course, but biiiiig).
>
> I'm not sure why it would be relevant, though.
I went and looked for the discussion since Merlin mentioned it (and I'm
a happy user of both Subversion and PosgreSQL and recommend them both).
I don't think they do think that the implementation is relevant. The
only message I saw mentioned it
in passing, as in, "wouldn't it be great if PosgreSQL development used
Subversion which stored
the data in a PosgreSQL backend."
This is the real Issue for one of the primary developers and commiters,
Tom Lane:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2004-11/msg00183.php
Summary: he's never lost data with CVS and does not have the same
confidence in the alternatives
This message gives you an idea how the thread started (Tom Lane didn't
want to move a file and lose history):
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2004-11/msg00135.php
(and look at Tom's follow-up)
If you send a message to that list and aren't subscribed, it'll get
flagged for moderation. (I did anyway to provide a few
clarifications.)
-Travis
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org