On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 06:35:35PM +0200, Reinstein, Shlomo wrote:
> This would be fine if CVS had consistent behavior when using a local
> repository and when using client/server. Until a short time ago, we used to
> work with a local repository (on a network drive), and we got used to that
> behavior. Our set of scripts around CVS rely on this behavior.
It's supposed to work as you expect, locally and client/server
both. I'm very surprised by the behaviour you saw -- so
surprised that I can't help suspecting that something else was
going on, since I don't believe I've ever seen an up-to-date
check pass when it shouldn't.
> Technical details:
> - User A works on Linux, using CVS client & server version
> 1.10.8.
> - User B works on Windows 2000, using CVS client 1.10.7 and
> server 1.10.8
> (both users using the same CVS server machine, same version of CVS on both
> machines)
Umm, those are pretty old! May I suggest upgrading to 1.11.5?
No guarantee that it'll help, but it couldn't hurt.
> - The repository is on NFS.
You probably know which red flag that's raising for me :-) But
from what you say above, it sounds as though only the one
CVS-server Linux box is accessing the repo directly (i.e. it's
the only NFS client to touch it). If that's correct, it makes
things less worrisome -- but I suppose there still might be
interoperability problems between the Linux NFS client and your
NFS server if it's on a different platform.
--
| | /\
|-_|/ > Eric Siegerman, Toronto, Ont. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| | /
A distributed system is one on which I cannot get any work done,
because a machine I have never heard of has crashed.
- Leslie Lamport
_______________________________________________
Info-cvs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
