Hello Todd, Gaurav, and the rest of this list, ;) * On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 09:22:34AM -0400 Todd Denniston wrote: > Spiro Trikaliotis wrote, On 08/21/2008 01:36 PM: >> * On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 09:50:48AM -0400 Denniston, Todd A CIV >> NAVSURFWARCENDIV Crane, Code JSXN wrote: >>> Gaurav Chhabra wrote, On 08/21/2008 05:42 AM: [...] >> Why? Just running Windows does not mean that one has to use CVSNT. For >> example, I am using CVS (client *and* server) successfully on Windows >> with Cygwin. >> [...] > Considering recent history (past couple of years) however, I believe that > those who had made the conscious to use cygwin would have been explicit > about doing so.
You are right. I did not think about this. > Gaurav Chhabra, it might be good to be explicit as to which cvs program > you are running in future messages, i.e., include the output of `cvs > --version` from the server and client. Also explicitly call out if you > are using cygwin. Instead of "cvs --version", it is better to use "cvs version" from within a sandbox (or cvs -d <CVSROOT-specification> version" which determines the version number of the client AND of the server. It's very handy. >> For reasons *not* to use CVSNT, see the posting from Michael Haggerty on >> August 20th (Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>). >> >> (Waiting for Arthur to come up with reasons to use CVSNT ;) ) >> > > Though I agree with many/most of Mr. Haggerty's points, I think Arthur > has two reasonably strong points he could argue in discussion with _your_ > statement: First: Remember that I do not say that there are no points for CVSNT. I just wanted to state that I only tell half of the story, and that I expected Arthur to come and tell the other side. > 1) the code and code history (repository) is available for for anyone to > examine (currently). Yes, that's right. However, this does not help for the future. Additionally, I am not even sure that the sources would explain all artifacts of the CVSNT repository format of older versions. I only have the feeling that the CVSNT developers do not take care that much of backwards compatibility as the CVS developers do. I cannot proove this; in fact, I might be wrong in this aspect, but it is my feeling. > 2) CVSNT works easily with windows, as a server, instead of in spite of > windows (AFAICT). [Bias: why anyone would _want_ to use windows for a > server is still beyond me.] For example, in my case, I use Windows as an additional server. That is, my main server is on a unixoid machine. However, when I am on travel with my laptop (without network access), I take an rsync'ed copy of the repository with me. This way, I can work offline (read-only!) with CVS as if I would have network access. Of course, I could use the :local: access method for this. However, I like to use CVS the same way as I use it with the real server, this, I am always using the :ext: access method. Additionally, if I go to another machine (and my laptop is around), I use that repository, too. So, in this case, I have to use :ext:. Thinking about what I just said, this means that I do *not* really use cvs.exe as a server; instead, my sshd is the server, and the local cvs.exe calls the (remote) cvs.exe via ssh. (It doesn't matter here that local and remote or the same machines.) - So, to be more precise: I do *not* have any experience with running cvs.exe with Cygwin to server :pserver: - but, as we all know, some developers do not consider :pserver: to be a good idea at the first place, so, this might not be such a big restriction. Regards, Spiro. -- Spiro R. Trikaliotis http://opencbm.sf.net/ http://www.trikaliotis.net/ http://www.viceteam.org/
