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.
Hytham, > and CVSNT v2.5.03.2382. My tests usually constitute connecting to the > pserver with these clients and also connecting through multiple build > servers using the "ssh" access method. For testing CVSNT, I have only > tested it using the "ssh" access method thus far, with the > repository nfs mounted on the target machine. The target machine > has CVSNT installed, and I have tried checking out code using both CVS > and CVSNT. As long as you are READING ONLY (no 'cvs tag', no 'cvs ci') then this is probably OK. Best if you put the CVSNT server into 'read-only' mode just to be safe. The usual (safer) method is to 'copy' the active repository to a new location for testing. Also CVSNT/CVS Suite use a different repository format to CVS - once you do a commit to CVSNT Server/CVS Suite Server then your repository will no longer be in a format where CVS 1.10/1.11 can use it. > We currently have many past and present projects that are > utilizing this > modules method of checking out individual files to a current > directory, and > at this point we would like to avoid having to change the > structure of the > repository to accommodate for this bug. I'm NOT suggesting you change the structure of your repository - I'm asking why you need to 'checkout' into the 'current directory' and why can you use a named 'sub-directory'? If you were checking out an individual file I'd understand it, but you use -p for that usually... cvs co -p module/file.txt > file.txt > BTW, the plan would be to replace the older pserver with > CVSNT if I can demonstrate that it resolves these issues. > I will send a formal request to the support e-mail address > tomorrow. When is the anticipated release of CVS > Suite 2008? It was due out weeks ago, but we keep finding bugs... Hopefully no more than a couple of more days. > Do you anticipate that this bug could be > addressed by the final release? It's hard to tell - if you are looking at purchasing 100 more licenses then I'd say there is a good chance - if you are looking at purchasing just 1 or 2 more licenses then I'm not so sure. I'll keep an eye out for the request when it hits the queue and I'll try and get the amount of work scoped out quickly so we can tell if it's a candidate for the next build. Regards, Arthur Barrett