On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 07:24:21PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Mind you, I'm in favor of one. A new SCM would make some other > > development tasks easier. However, I'm reluctant to open the > > can-of-worms which is the "what SCM should we use" discussion > > again, and complicate something which we seem to have consensus > > on.
We don't need to, as the tool is already in place. > As near as I can tell, the arguments for a new SCM mostly apply to > work which individual developers are doing outside the main tree. > So, given the existence of stuff like git-cvsimport, I don't see a > strong reason why anyone who wants to work that way can't already > sync the core CVS with a local SCM-of-their-choice and get on with > it. > > You're right that this is utterly unrelated to the scheduling > question, anyway. It's not even slightly unrelated. It's a way of preventing bit-rot on large patches and keeping them in sync :) Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate ---------------------------(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
