Reinoud van Leeuwen said: > On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 09:30:09AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> Tom Lane wrote: >> > I haven't seen any particular reason why we should adopt another >> > SCM. Perhaps BitKeeper or SubVersion would be better for our >> > purposes than CVS, but are they enough better to justify the >> > switchover costs? >> >> BitKeeper ist not open source, so it's out of the question for most >> people. > > Why? I understood that using BitKeeper for free for Open Source > projects is allowed. (but IANAL). > It is available (on many platforms). It works great. Once you use > changesets you'll never want to go back to cvs. > > Producing an Open Source product does not mean that all tools are Open > Source. Windows isn't and Postgresql is going to support windows. >
tools we use <> platforms we support. With one tiny exception all the tools we use for producing the Windows binaries are in fact open source. Anyway, when people who actually make substantial contributions start making noises about changing source repository systems it should be considered - nobody else should care or be listened to, IMNSHO. cheers andrew ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
