[cvsnt] Re: Two CVSNT servers on same machine

[Daniel Lapolla]

> > I agree, but what about develpers' sandboxes? (please read
> > http://www.cvsnt.org/wiki/Upgrading)
>
> Hmm, I don't know what should be the reason for that recommendation....
> neither the clients nor the sandboxes are affected by the upgrade at
all...

Well, Bo recommended that to me a few days ago. See this thread: "Re: Server
upgrade from 1.11.1.3 rc1 (Build 53) to 2.0.34".

Then Aric updated the Upgrade faq on 2004-03-30 as you can see here:
http://www.cvsnt.org/wiki/RecentChanges

> > I'm unnable to force 70 developers to commit their changes at the same
> time.
> > So I will migrate them to the new server in a by project (module) basis.
>
> ?? I thought the repository was to remain on the same machine?

It will reamin on the same machine (remenber the initial post on this
thread: 2 servers on same machine).

> Or do your
> developers have got their sandboxes on network shares? If so, stop doing
> that yesterday. Look here: http://cvsgui.sf.net/newfaq.htm#remoteSandbox .
> I'm probably grossly misunderstanding you....

Sandboxes remains on each developer's local harddisk.

> > This way each development group can plan a different migration date that
> > better suits their cronograms.
>
> A server upgrade usually isn't something that the clients and especially
> their working copies are affected by at all. Nothing changes at that end.
> The repository format stays the same and the interface to access it stays
> the same as well. The only thing that changes are the server binaries
which
> after the update will support a few more bells and whistles than before.
> That's all.

You are partially correct. CVSNT newer versions store mergepoints and binary
deltas, so the repository format is not the same.

But I agree that the working copy format shoud be the same. I don't
understand why I have to commit the changes before upgrade the server. Maybe
Bo or Tony coud explain this issue better...

Thanks,
Daniel