Paul Sander wrote:
I can say from experience that assembling a sandbox from an unlocked
repository is no more or less safe than any out-of-date sandbox, provided
the CVS metadata are correct with respect to the contents of the working
files. In either case, a "cvs update" is required (with
Derek R. Price writes:
What of the case where a file is being written while a read-only CVS attempts
to read it. Providing RCS doesn't consistently break, and I'm far from sure
it will, the resulting partial file in the sandbox will have valid metadata.
If the file was touched in the
Paul Sander wrote:
Have you looked into the way that RCS works? It does not replace the
RCS files in-place; it makes a modified copy in its lock file, and then
renames the lock file on top of the original.
Yeah, I knew that. Thanks.
I've used this method with great success for years,
I use RCS directly on the repository via a network filesystem.
--- Forwarded mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Paul Sander wrote:
Have you looked into the way that RCS works? It does not replace the
RCS files in-place; it makes a modified copy in its lock file, and then
renames the lock file on
Paul Sander writes:
I use RCS directly on the repository via a network filesystem.
Just for posterity, let me note that using RCS to *read* a CVS
repository is completely safe, but using RCS to *write* to a CVS
repository is dangerous because they don't honor each other's locking
schemes.
On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 10:11:18AM -0700, Paul Sander wrote:
Due to the way that the filesystem works, if the original is open for
reading at the time of the rename, it remains open with the old data,
and gets removed when it's closed. So the sandbox gets the correct
data.
There's a
Agreed, this only works for read-only operations, like the one that
started this thread.
--- Forwarded mail from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Paul Sander writes:
I use RCS directly on the repository via a network filesystem.
Just for posterity, let me note that using RCS to *read* a CVS
repository is
On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 11:24:19PM +0100, Assar Westerlund wrote:
What the patch below does is introduce an
option (`-R') for running without creating any lock-files.
This would let any user subvert CVS locking in the interest of
"saving time" (famous last words) and potentially corrupt the
I can say from experience that assembling a sandbox from an unlocked
repository is no more or less safe than any out-of-date sandbox, provided
the CVS metadata are correct with respect to the contents of the working
files. In either case, a "cvs update" is required (with the accompanying
