Peter Eisentraut wrote:
There is also a big difference between supporting some proprietary
software and making proprietary software a de facto requirement for
participating in the development effort.
Just to complete the information on this, I have it on good authority
(i.e. from Larry McVo
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
Reinoud van Leeuwen wrote:
> 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.
There is a world of a difference between being free
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
On 08/09/04:32/1, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> BitKeeper ist not open source, so it's out of the question for most
> people. Subversion is shockingly unstable. I'm very open for
> something that replaces CVS, but I'd rather not use any than one of
> these two.
>From my casual usage of svn, I hav
Hi,
On Monday 09 August 2004 09:30, you 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 is
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
pe
On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 01:18:02AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Maybe a better SCM could help with this, but I doubt it.
>
> I haven't seen any particular reason why we should adopt another SCM.
> Perhaps BitKeeper or SubVersion would be better for our
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't think it was a problem of committers. To me it was a problem of
> reviewers. Those are very scarce (for the bigger items it's mostly only
> Tom).
Yah. We have plenty of people authorized to commit, and we add more
on a pretty regular basis.
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
I don't think it was a problem of committers. To me it was a problem of
reviewers. Those are very scarce (for the bigger items it's mostly only
Tom). Maybe a better SCM could help with this, but I doubt it. As an
example, I did read the autovacuum patch, but I had no usefu
On Sat, Aug 07, 2004 at 12:38:10PM +0200, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >Subversion and arch have been mentioned, but so far there is no
> >compelling reason to change. It'd take convincing at least a couple
> >of core hackers to get the ball rolling ...
>
> Well, I think havi
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On Sat, Aug 07, 2004 at 01:34:20AM +0200, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Yeah. I included your tab-complete patch in the patch I sent to
pgsql-patches, which later Tom reworked and applied. His CVS comment
didn't mention the tab completion change. This isn't
On Sat, Aug 07, 2004 at 01:34:20AM +0200, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> >Yeah. I included your tab-complete patch in the patch I sent to
> >pgsql-patches, which later Tom reworked and applied. His CVS comment
> >didn't mention the tab completion change. This isn't surprisin
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 06:42:03PM +0200, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
I'm reading some comment on CVS and I seen this comment
for tab-complete.c revision 1.109:
Fix subtransaction behavior for large objects, temp namespace, files,
password/group files. Also allow read-only subtra
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 06:42:03PM +0200, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
> I'm reading some comment on CVS and I seen this comment
> for tab-complete.c revision 1.109:
>
> Fix subtransaction behavior for large objects, temp namespace, files,
> password/group files. Also allow read-only subtransactions o
Hi all,
I'm reading some comment on CVS and I seen this comment
for tab-complete.c revision 1.109:
Fix subtransaction behavior for large objects, temp namespace, files,
password/group files. Also allow read-only subtransactions of a read-write
parent, but not vice versa. These are the reasonably
16 matches
Mail list logo
