> You're right, that should work. But in that case, wouldn't I just be keeping > two different CVS repositories (rather than two that contain the same info, > and are "just" in different locations)? I wonder how the guys who work on > larger projects handle that (since I doubt that they don't have local copies > of their CVS repositories).
Actually, most development teams try pretty hard to keep a single repository for source code...you start running into way too many problems otherwise, and this is exactly what CVS is designed to do. Now, pretty much everyone *DOES* have local copies of the build-tree on there local system (often several versions of the build-tree at the same time), but you have to get into a pretty seriously large development team before having mutliple CVS type repositories makes a lot of sense...typically this means two (or more) primary development sites, each with a large number of users, at which point there are some commercial solutions that provide the features necessary to do this. They cost big $$$, but when you look at the daily payroll for this sort of design team, the $$$ is worth it. Remember, the daily bandwidth to sync to a remote CVS system is approximately the rate of code output of the programmer(s) involved, so you have to get a *LOT* of people at one location before the complexity of multiple CVS servers begins to win-out over simply consuming (and possibly buying) more bandwidth. > > any particular > > reason you're using a local repository instead of the SF CVS server? > Well, backups mainly. From what's gone over this list lately, I surely don't > want SF to be my _only_ repository. And keeping local copies (outside of > CVS) just to be safe, kind of defeats the whole purpose. As it is now, I > just back up the whole repository to tape or a CD, and that's it. This is understandable. Source-Forge makes a nightly CVS tarball available of the LEAF project. Currently, it's not too large, but if folks keep adding binary packages to it, it could be big really fast. While there are backups of the SF data (made by both the SF folks, and some of us beginning to mirror the SF site), I can understand your wanting a local copy. Probably the best way to do this on a permanent basis would be to have scripts on the SF site create a a "mini" CVS tarball for you...just write a script that grabs the CVS tarball, extracts the files from your branch, and e-mails (or otherwise transfers) the files to one of your systems... > And then, still learning the ropes with CVS, its much easier to to that > locally and "just" keep the SF CVS as a remote mirror, where other people > can have access, if they like. It would get even more complicated if > somebody submitted a patch to the SF CVS, but since I haven's received any > patches or source changes yet, I'm not too worried about that yet. Saddly, you probably don't have to worry about this, but IMHO, the whole point of using SF for LEAF, and one of the big goals of the LEAF project, is to encourage contribution by anyone, hopefully stemming the tide of "me-too" type releases, where our would-be developers/contributors release a slightly modified version of a package or distribution, rather than getting their changes incorperated into the base... BTW: I've been using the SF CVS server for the small bits of code I've actually been writing (mainly the sh-httpd web server), so I'm at least trying to practice what I preach (although I really should get a bunch of the scripts that makeup Dachstein into CVS as well, but nobody's perfect... ;-) Charles Steinkuehler [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
