"Daniels, David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Someone has proposed a CVS setup to me which I would very much like comments >on. In this proposed system, there would be two CVS repositories. The first >would be open to the development staff and would be for general use. The >second would be an rsynced version of the first and would be for creating >releases for testing or production.
I could see that if you have a slow link between two sites, but otherwise why not use a single repository and eliminate the middleman? "cvs export" works fine for releases. >The second repository also would have >the users who have access limited to the release manager for the project. >The reasons I was given for a second repository include security and better >manageability. Any thoughts? Hmmm, you *might* be able to tune access more finely with a second repository, but the argument isn't very convincing to me. Any specifics? I don't think it can hurt much, when in doubt the development repository is authoritative, but I don't see how it helps. -- Pierre Asselin Westminster, Colorado -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- _______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
