RE: cvs 1.11.23 executable available for Windows?

[Arthur Barrett]

Mark,

Thanks for your comments.

>> Whether using the client or the server I believe
>> most windows users of CVS use CVSNT.
> 
> Hmmm... having worked with Nelson to get the CVS
> 1.11.23 sources building and doing the right thing
> under Windows, I rather think he knows the
> difference and would have asked the cvsnt group
> for help if that had been his question.

I try and make no such presumtion.  

I think contributing to projects is a good thing and congratulate Nelson for 
doing so.

I freely admit a little envy that given an obvious interest in both CVS and 
Windows that he was not tempted to become a contributor to a different project 
;)  

However if there is some behaviour in CVSNT that precludes it being used on 
windows as an effective CVS 1.11.x client I'd like to know and was hoping that 
my post would produce an explanation.  Of course it could simply be the Sir 
Edmund Hillary response 'because it was there'.

> I would not be surprised to learn that a site
> which has a mixture of operating systems with a
> UNIX CVS installation might be using CVS rather
> than CVSNT as clients under Windows.

Most windows users being rather fond of GUI's tend to use the cvs client that 
supports their GUI.  And CVSNT has the 'cvsgui' protocol so it tends to get the 
lions share, though there are some Java client libraries that also crop up a 
bit (everything from Oracle JDeveloper to Eclipse).  Also windows users are 
rather fond of active directory integration which CVSNT provides with the SSPI 
protocol (though that does require CVSNT server as well though not necessarily 
on windows).

> Indeed. And it is good to direct CVSNT questions
> to that group. This question was explicitly about
> CVS and not CVSNT.

I still see a not-insignificant percentage of Q's per month specifically about 
CVSNT on this newsgroup.  I think people just assume CVSNT is the windows port 
of CVS and that the CVS newsgroup is the correct place to go and ask Questions.

> To be honest, I believe in building ALL of my
> applications from source and NEVER using pre-built
> binaries...

And indeed that is a large part of the FOSS 'movement' - remembering it is the 
source which is 'free' not necessarily the binary/object (however that since 
building from source is so 'easy' the distinction often is arbitrary) and as 
you pointed out - the 'free' is the 'freedom' to contribute which is rather 
difficult without the source.

> So, if it is typical for Windows users to blindly
> install binaries on their machines which they did
> not build, then by all means we should try to give
> them an 'official' copy of the tool.

I think that is an excellent idea.

Regards,


Arthur