In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Andrew McGhee wrote: >I've heard it mentioned on this newsgroup that mixing NFS with CVS is a bad >idea. > >Can anyone elaborate more one this?
Specifically, it is a bad idea for clients to access an NFS-mounted CVS repository, rather than using a CVS-level protocol. It's a nearly equally bad idea for the server to access its repository through NFS. >The goal here is to have; >1. A backup CVS server, in case the first one fails. Must there really be this much availability in a CVS server? It's not like a CVS repository serves thousands upon thousands of developers. Moreover, there is already a kind of distributed availability built into CVS in the sense that you have your working copy; development work is not entirely impaired if CVS repository access is disrupted. If you have a read-only CVS server for mass public access, that's something else. _______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
