On Nov 28, 2006, at 6:52 PM, Christopher Browne wrote:

> Generally, the newer SCMs support atomic commits, better handling  
> of renaming things, and more sophisticated branching.

what scm's are others familiar with already?  personally, i'd be  
loathe to learn yet another tool... and yes, that sounds like  
"everyone else is doing it..."  if we are to switch, i'd prefer svn  
simply for the reason that it is widely known and used in many OS  
projects and is very similar to the way things are now with CVS.

The effect of change won't be only to active committers, but also to  
those out here who pull down the bleeding edge versions for  
testing.   it is just raising the bar to participate.

With the new svnrsync utility, keeping an up-to-date remote copy of  
the repo is mostly trivial.

also, with the addition of trac or cvstrac, both CVS and SVN make a  
basis for an incredibly useful project management environment, and  
gives a great way to review sources and compare changes across  
revisions.  do the other SCM's have nicely integrated project  
management?  browsing their web sites didn't point me to anything  
obvious.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2530 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://gborg.postgresql.org/pipermail/slony1-general/attachments/20061129/d5dc57ae/attachment.bin