Jaime Casanova <jcasanov at systemguards.com.ec> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 10:04 PM, Steve Singer <ssinger at ca.afilias.info> wrote:
>>
>> I agree that it makes senes to wait to see what PostgreSQL decides to do
>
> that easily could means wait forever ;)

No, we're pretty sure the matter will be discussed at the developer
summit at pgCon, and it seems likely that *some* information will be
disclosed after that.

After all, some of the folks that said "+1" in this thread have been
known to "+1" the same on pg-hackers :-).

At any rate, I fully expect there to be *some* public discussion about
what's going on with PostgreSQL during the course of pgCon, and, seeing
as how we've been going along fine with CVS for a long time now, it
makes sense for us to wait a month to come up with any hard conclusions.

It is entirely possible that they'll conclude that the "PostgreSQL on
Git" notion will be put off until 2011; if that is the case, then:

- It's worth considering whether the reasons put forth are relevant
  to us, or affect our decision;

- We could certainly conclude that the reasons *aren't* relevant, and,
  with that relatively brief pause, proceed with whatever we conclude
  we ought to do.

For instance (and I make this up!), the PG core team might discover that
there's some heinous code-losing bug in Git, and conclude that they'll
have to put off the matter pending investigation of alternatives.  

Were that to be the case (e.g. - "heinous code-losing bug"), it would
seem dangerous to proceed on a Git-wards trajectory, unless we had some
excellent reasons to expect that it would not be applicable to Slony.

In short (too late!), if, come June, it still seems like "wait forever,"
then we'll have to make decisions here.  Waiting until June isn't
forever :-).
-- 
"cbbrowne","@","ca.afilias.info"
Christopher Browne
"Bother,"  said Pooh,  "Eeyore, ready  two photon  torpedoes  and lock
phasers on the Heffalump, Piglet, meet me in transporter room three"