Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 15:42:40 -0600 From: nate@sneezy.sri.com (Nate Williams) To: Doug Rabson <dfr@render.com> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: CVS 1.5 is out Message-ID: <199507112142.PAA06239@rocky.sri.MT.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.91.950711165211.7169C-100000@minnow.render.com> References: <Pine.BSF.3.91.950711165211.7169C-100000@minnow.render.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I just noticed that CVS 1.5 has been released and one of the things it > mentions that is new is client-server support. Does anyone know whether > this is any good? The client-server stuff is 'OK'. I've been testing it for a while now, and I even set it up with a machine in a the Bay Area and did some commits to/from Montana to see how things work. Basically, my *opinion* is that the sup/CTM synchronization with a local CVS repository works better for development than the client-server stuff in CVS 1.5. A long discussion on what I thought would be a better way of doing things along with other points made should be in the CVS mailing list archives. Basically, the biggest downside of the current setup is that your network link *must* be up for *every single* CVS operation, which makes things obnoxious for doing development over slow SLIP/PPP links over the internet. However, I am using it for keeping a bunch of machines on my local network synchronized, and it works very well for that. > In particular, is it good enough to reliably support remote commits > across the internet without screwing up big time when the link goes > down mid-commit? It's pretty safe now. Basically, they do things in a 'transaction' style which means that all of the information is completely passed to the server before anything is done. This avoids problems with links going down or partial commands locking up the tree. Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199507112142.PAA06239>