On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 12:24:04PM -0500, Jay Yarbrough wrote:
> It would appear for anyone who truly needs multiple repositories kept in sync,
> that CVS is an unacceptable tool. This is most unfortunate.
Correct. Various kludges have been suggested on this list, and
maybe even used successfully -- but they're all kludges.
Fundamentally, CVS expects there to be one repo, and it expects
users to be connected to it when they do CVS operations.
Disconnected operation is limited to the most trivial kind: check
out a sandbox; take the laptop home (for e.g.) but don't do any
CVS operations; bring the laptop back to work, plug it into the
network, and commit.
> Our need is to have them use an SCM tool that can support multiple synchronized
> repositories.
Bitkeeper (www.bitkeeper.com) claims to do this. Not free,
unfortunately, unless you're willing to live with all your commit
logs being published. I've never used it, so can't vouch for it,
but it might be worth a look.
--
| | /\
|-_|/ > Eric Siegerman, Toronto, Ont. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| | /
Anyone who swims with the current will reach the big music steamship;
whoever swims against the current will perhaps reach the source.
- Paul Schneider-Esleben
_______________________________________________
Info-cvs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
