On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 11:53:13 +0100, Thomas Hallgren wrote:
> Andrew McMillan wrote:
>> 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 t
Ian Barwick wrote:
> flat-file based backend ... and the docs mention possible issues with
scalability.
My impression from being on the Subversion mailing lists:
The FSFS backend (flat-file system) scalability issues remain largely
theoretical. In practice, it appears to work at least as well a
Andrew McMillan wrote:
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-sou
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
Greg Stark said:
>
> Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> This just reinforces Tom's well-made point about maturity/stability. I
>> rejected using SVN on another project a few months ago for just this
>> sort of reason.
>
> I'm not sure what this says about maturity, you realize read-on
Greg Stark wrote:
>
> Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>
> > Interestingly, the subversion repository is 585MB, and the CVS
> > repository is only 260MB,
>
> So apparently this is a limitation of svn2cvs. It uses a lot more space to
> represent tags and branches than would be required
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Interestingly, the subversion repository is 585MB, and the CVS
> repository is only 260MB,
So apparently this is a limitation of svn2cvs. It uses a lot more space to
represent tags and branches than would be required if they had been created in
svn di
Markus Bertheau wrote:
Ð ÐÑÐ, 05.11.2004, Ð 21:40, Heikki Linnakangas ÐÐÑÐÑ:
On Fri, 5 Nov 2004, Travis P wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Interestingly, the subversion repository is 585MB, and the CVS repository
is only 260MB,
BDB or FSFS back-end? FSFS seems to require
Ð ÐÑÐ, 05.11.2004, Ð 21:40, Heikki Linnakangas ÐÐÑÐÑ:
> On Fri, 5 Nov 2004, Travis P wrote:
>
> > Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >> Interestingly, the subversion repository is 585MB, and the CVS repository
> > is only 260MB,
> >
> > BDB or FSFS back-end? FSFS seems to require less space. (The BDB
On Fri, 5 Nov 2004, Travis P wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Interestingly, the subversion repository is 585MB, and the CVS repository
is only 260MB,
BDB or FSFS back-end? FSFS seems to require less space. (The BDB backend
tends to pre-allocate space though, so maybe there was a big jump, but
Ian Barwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Aha, glad I'm not the only one. Version 1.1 has a flat-file based
> backend which is not prone to BDB-permission-related problems, see:
> http://svnbook.red-bean.com/svnbook-1.1/ch05.html#svn-ch-5-sect-1.4 .
> It's only been around a few months though and t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
| Have you looked at TortoiseCVS (www.tortoisecvs.org)? I think
| TortoiseSVN is a fork of that.
I didn't know the existence, is not even listed in the subproject
on CVS home page, I discovered TortoiseSVN on the Subversion hom
On Fri, 5 Nov 2004, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
FWIW, I think Peter's idea of offering Subversion as an alternative in
pgfoundry is very good.
Mmm, do you mean createing periodically "snapshot"? Yes this could be
a good idea.
No, I mean that each project could choose to use ei
On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 16:22:55 +0100, Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am Freitag, 5. November 2004 14:13 schrieb Andrew Dunstan:
> > I'll repeat an observation I made (more or less) last time we had this
> > discussion: the loudest voice in it belongs to those who actually use
> > the re
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I tried that yesterday out of curiosity. It had problems with 3 files
which I removed manually:
/pgsql/src/interfaces/perl5/Attic/ApachePg.pl,v
/pgsql/src/interfaces/perl5/Attic/test.pl.newstyle,v
/pgsql/src/interfaces/perl5/Attic/test.pl.oldstyle.pl,v
Otherwise, no prob
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On Fri, 5 Nov 2004, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
I'm certainly open to considering subversion, although I have a
certain traumatic experience with it that may or may not be related
to the BDB backend that it uses.
I think for a start it would be nice i
On Fri, 5 Nov 2004, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
I'm certainly open to considering subversion, although I have a certain
traumatic experience with it that may or may not be related to the BDB
backend that it uses.
I think for a start it would be nice if pgfoundry could optional
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Am Freitag, 5. November 2004 14:13 schrieb Andrew Dunstan:
I'll repeat an observation I made (more or less) last time we had this
discussion: the loudest voice in it belongs to those who actually use
the repository most. When Tom or Bruce or Peter (for example) tell us we
ne
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
I think for a start it would be nice if pgfoundry could optionally offer
subversion (and/or arch) for source control, so that some developer groups
and also our system administrators could get some experience with it.
I agree. We (the pgfoundry admins) will see what c
Am Freitag, 5. November 2004 14:13 schrieb Andrew Dunstan:
> I'll repeat an observation I made (more or less) last time we had this
> discussion: the loudest voice in it belongs to those who actually use
> the repository most. When Tom or Bruce or Peter (for example) tell us we
> need to change I'l
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Neil Conway wrote:
Thomas Hallgren wrote:
Another compelling reason to use SVN is that one of their long term
goals is to use an SQL backend.
That is about as far from a "compelling reason" to use a particular
version control system as I can imagine.
Yeah.
I see these co
Neil Conway wrote:
Thomas Hallgren wrote:
Another compelling reason to use SVN is that one of their long term
goals is to use an SQL backend.
That is about as far from a "compelling reason" to use a particular
version control system as I can imagine.
Yeah.
I see these considerations as being
Thomas Hallgren wrote:
Another compelling reason to use SVN is that one of their long term
goals is to use an SQL backend.
That is about as far from a "compelling reason" to use a particular
version control system as I can imagine.
-Neil
---(end of broadcast)-
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Can this be discussed for 8.1?
It's been discussed, and rejected, several times already. There aren't
any alternatives that are enough better than CVS to be worth the
changeover effort.
regards, tom lane
--
24 matches
Mail list logo
