Steve Singer <ssinger at ca.afilias.info> writes:
> How do people feel about moving the slony source tree to git?

For my part, I'd think it a fine idea.

-> There's a bit of "infrastructure fragility" right now in that it's a
   more manual process (for me) than I'm happy with to ensure there are
   distributed backups of CVS.  Git would enable just about anyone to
   readily create complete replicas in any number of locations.

-> Git would enable using local branches to do development even of
   relatively minor patches, then merging those that are successful into
   stable branches, which is certainly not something that is well
   supported by CVS.

I'd think a "short list" of plausible SCMs would consist of subversion,
git, mercurial, darcs.  Subversion *wouldn't* help with the "distributed
backups" aspect, which goes a long ways towards disqualifying it, to my
mind.

With git being under serious consideration for PostgreSQL itself, it
seems to me that there would need to be mighty compelling arguments in
favor of mercurial or darcs (which, it should be observed, haven't
emerged in the PostgreSQL context!) to do otherwise.

I'd not want to rush/railroad the matter, but it certainly gets a "+1
from me."
-- 
let name="cbbrowne" and tld="ca.afilias.info" in name ^ "@" ^ tld;;
Christopher Browne
"Bother,"  said Pooh,  "Eeyore, ready  two photon  torpedoes  and lock
phasers on the Heffalump, Piglet, meet me in transporter room three"