Community technical support mailing list was retired 2010 and replaced with a professional technical support team. For assistance please contact: Pre-sales Technical support via email to sales@march-hare.com.
Tony Hoyle wrote: > You're talking about synchronising two cvs servers 24/7 between > development teams over dialup - what I'm saying is that it's doomed to > failure from the start, because dialup simply is not practical for that > kind of work. There must be some language barrier here. I was talking about _mirroring_ a cvs server in another location (not synchronizing two servers), and I was talking about doing that maybe once or twice a day (not 24/7). And again, you just say "not practical" without any specifics. Why not? Data quantities? That depends a lot on the project. Not every team of, say, 4 developers commits more than 50 MB compressed source code every day. > Stick to one server hosted on a proper server (possibly in the US if you > don't have local hosting companies), and have the developers dialup when > they need to commit if they really are stuck on such slow links, so > you're not dragging down the entire development process to the speed of > the slowest developer. I'm not sure what you are envisioning in terms of work flow, but definitely not what I described a few messages back. The team located in a LAN environment without good high-speed access to the Internet would be severely hindered by a cvs server outside their LAN. So why not let them have their server locally? They don't drag anybody down, as they are not working with people outside their LAN. But since I want to have fast read-only access to their repository, I don't want to work off their server; I'd rather work off a read-only mirror of their repository at my location. What's the problem with that? You always say "not good" without giving me any reason to think about. Gerhard