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 tree
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
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 in
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
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
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
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
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'll
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
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
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
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
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
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 repository
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
-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
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 the
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
, 05.11.2004, 21:40, Heikki Linnakangas :
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
Markus Bertheau wrote:
, 05.11.2004, 21:40, Heikki Linnakangas :
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
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 directly.
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 if they had been created
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-only
access
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
