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.
"David Somers" <dsomers at omz13.com> wrote in message
news:ebn7a9$rjm$1 at paris.nodomain.org...
> Use modules2 (or modules) to share modules/files.
>
> IMHO, modules2 is easier to use than modules. YMMV.
Definitions in the "modules" are use often on our side; also to do some complex
changes in the directory structure. It works and caused no problems when we
switch our repository from CVS to CVSNT.´Nevertheless you need always some
iterations, until the definitions in the modules file leads to the expected
results.
When I look to the bug reports w.r.t "modules2" in this list, I conclude that
the usage of modules2 with CVSNT 2.5.x should be deprecated.
I do not fully understand why "modules2" is not working but "modules" does,
since already with "modules" you can do a total remapping of the physical
repository directory structurs to an arbitrary logical directory structure in
your sandbox.
> > Can risks be reduced, if the link is protected (no commit possible) via a
> > lock (-k+x) or marked as static (-k+s)?
>
> Possibly... you'd have to manually lock/unlock the files affected...
> probably easier to use modules/modules2.
>
According to Tony it'll work until the very first commit, then the files will
be independent.
Probably already setting a tag will cause this divorce. As far as I understand
I could block a commit via "-k+x" and "-k+s", but I could not block the setting
of a tag to this file.
Best regards
Jan Giesen