[cvsnt] Re: cvsnt status

[Ori Berger]

Bo Berglund wrote:
> I would have a hard time installing anything but the MS SQL-2000 on my
> servers for example. Using MySql is not viable due to their licensing
> requirements and all other alternatives are rather expensive too.

MySQL is dual licensed, with one license being the GPL. Why would 
you have a problem installing anything GPL?

MySQL 4 is also embeddable, which would allow CVSNT to not require a 
separate database installaion. There's also Sqlite 
<http://www.sqlite.org>, which is available only in embeddable form, 
and is quite fast, and I suppose there are others as well.

> So since you make CVSNT using Visual Studio I guess the best bet would
> be Microsoft MSDE2000?

Don't know if that's still the case, but it used to have a rather 
small artificial limit on table sizes (4GB or something). While this 
is sufficient for most source repositories, it might be insufficient 
if you regularly commit binary files that are over 1-meg in size.

> What will happen with systems like ViewCvs in such a scenario?

Rendering a read-only file system version of the repository would 
make these work. This is a functionality also needed if you want to 
convert a repository from the database back to a filesystem.

BTW, I've started using cvstrac recently. I'm not sure it's CVSNT 
compatible (still using a standard CVS install), but it's lean, 
mean, robust and simple. It has a less capable viewer for repository 
files / revisions than, say, ViewCVS, but it does have a bug 
tracking system that integrates with CVS quite well, and it also has 
a built in Wiki. Try it if you have the time 
<http://www.cvstrac.org> ; It uses Sqlite as an embedded database.

> OTOH:
> With such a system there will be no way people would even consider
> accessing the raw repository other than through the cvs service. :-)

Oh, I wish that were true. They *will* be selecting from the 
database directly, and occasionally update records. It's human nature.

Ori.