[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: CVS on two unconnected machines

From: Matthew Pressly
Subject: Re: CVS on two unconnected machines
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 15:33:36 -0600

I think that could work, but the zip and floppy drives for these machines
are only accessible across a windows-based network.  I think I could
mount the Zip from the linux machine, but I'm a little leery about having
the primary copy of the repository sitting on a zip disk and on depending
on that connection, which might not be very robust, for all the transactions
to and from the repository.

I'n response to Francis, I think I could also get into trouble with the
current methodology if I commit changes on one machine to its repository
and commit other changes on the other machine.  Then the repositories could
get out of synch with each other, having the same revision number but
contents for one or more files.

I'm also wondering if treating the set of sources on one machine as though
they were third-party sources.  I might could keep repositories on both
machines but NOT try to keep the repositories in sync.  Then when I
want to move data from machine A to B, I could cvs export on A, tar up
the directory and put it on the floppy or zip, copy it onto B, untar it,
and import it as a third party source.  Any ideas on this approach?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Colby Allred" <address@hidden>
To: "Francis Irving" <address@hidden>
Cc: <address@hidden>
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 12:37 PM
Subject: Re: CVS on two unconnected machines

> I'll make a suggestion, but it may not help, or even work correctly.  I
> don't know enough about cvs' disk usage and other underlying functions.
> If your repository is small enough, you might be able to mount your zip
> disk as a filesystem and have your $CVSROOT point to it. (this is of
> course, assuming that you're using some OS that supports mounting
> filesystems)  I seem to recall that zip disks/drives have some feature
> that you can set some kind of lock that won't let you eject the
> might need to use that.
> This implies lots of things that might cause problems...most that i don't
> even know of.  Perhaps the guru's on this list can take this idea and
> point out its flaws/potential?
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Francis Irving wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:29:07 -0600, address@hidden (Matthew
> > Pressly) wrote:
> >
> > >Would it be better to keep the repository on only one machine and just
> > >copy working
> > >directories back and forth?
> >
> > That certainly sounds easier.  You can't ever get it wrong, either.
> >
> > The only disadvantage to your current method is that you can't commit
> > separate changes separately on the machine which is remote from the
> > repository.
> >
> > (Saying that, there's no reason you can't make multiple copies of the
> > working directory on the remote machine.  Then make separate changes
> > to each copy, transfer all the copies back again and commit them
> > separately).
> >
> > Francis
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Info-cvs mailing list
> > address@hidden
> >
> >
> --
> Colby Allred
> Advanced Hardware Architectures
> _______________________________________________
> Info-cvs mailing list
> address@hidden

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]