"Derek R. Price" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It wasn't most. You're correct. But there are requests and comments about
> using version precompiled to different port numbers and patches allow
> CVS_CLIENT_PORT to be set and the like. Demand had increased lately
> to make use of features like SSH tunnelling and occasionally I'd see
> comments about it being used for running more than one server on a
> single machine.
Yeah, that stuff does seem to be becoming more common (have started
doing a fair amount of SSH tunnelling myself, recently). I guess it's
evidence of how necessary the choose-your-port feature is.
> Okay. I see your point. Sorry. I think I even have most of the code lying
> around since that was how I designed it in the first place, so the
> change should be in soon. It takes a little longer to run, but
> there aren't many .cvspass lookups per session, so it shouldn't be a
> big deal.
Cool; thanks for having been ready to reconsider the issue. (I'm
presuming others will speak up if they disagree with this outcome.)
I'm curious why you say it will take a little longer to run. I
assumed we'd just treat the absence of an explicit port number as
being like an explicit 2401. That shouldn't require more than a few
nanoseconds of overhead... Or is there an issue I'm missing here?
-K
_______________________________________________
Bug-cvs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-cvs
