Re: Obtaining the files modified/created after a failed/successful build of CVS repository

[Spiro Trikaliotis]

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: <address@hidden>).
>>
>> (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/