"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Mark Mielke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> In terms of picking an SCM candidate, I don't think "time to install >> from source" is a legitimate concern. Installing from source is great, >> but if the package needs to be installed from source, it is not well >> enough supported by the community to be worth using. > > That is 100.0% wrong. Some people want to install from source, and > some don't have any choice because they are on platforms where there's > not a prebuilt binary available. I am *not* willing to say that we > will blow off developers on any platform that some other project is > choosing not to provide binaries for.
I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. I've never heard any complaints about building svn from source before for *developers*. I think that's just as easy as anything else. What I have heard in the distance past is that it was difficult to set up a server. That isn't something developers would have to do. And in any case I understood that to be mostly about how it used to depend on a web server which is no longer true anyways. > As a fairly well related example, note how CVSup never became the de > facto standard, because it wasn't portable enough, or at least had made > the wrong decisions about what to depend on. This is all predicated on a bit of ridiculous FUD. Apply the logic in reverse and it should be obvious. Subversion is a mature package being used by thousands of open source projects. At this point I would hazard it's more widely used than CVS amongst open source projects. Therefore it *doesn't* have any poor choices of dependencies. For what it's worth I think GIT is a better fit for our needs. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Ask me about EnterpriseDB's Slony Replication support! ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
