[cvsnt] Any migration caveats between CVSNT versions?

[Paul Bennett]

On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 01:19:20 -0400, Bo Berglund <bo.berglund at telia.com>  
wrote:

> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 18:00:23 -0400, "Paul Bennett"
> <paul.w.bennett at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 17:32:17 -0400, Bo Berglund <bo.berglund at telia.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, it is as simple concerning the actual data (RCS) files stored.
>>
>> The rest of your reply caused mine eyes to glazeth over a tiny bit. I'm  
>> a sysadmin, not a CVSNT admin (nor even a cvs user).
>
> You did not state that you know nothing about CVS in your original
> post. I am assuming that people asking about migration of CVS servers
> at least have a basic knowledge of the CVS system and its operation.
> Unless you do then you should not attempt to "manage" a CVS server.

I have enough knowledge to follow the instructions you gave. I know what  
checking in and checking out are, and what a CVSROOT is, and what the  
config files are, and where to find out more about them. I have added and  
removed repositories and users on the existing system. I'm not a "day 1"  
newbie, but I am also neither a guru nor incapable of learning.

>> However, it was full of
>> lots of useful words and phrases that ought to be findable in the
>> documentation, or at least the WWW. I actually prefer that to a "click
>> here, then here, then here" answer, so thanks!
>
> Do I take this that you object to me sharing the experience with you
> and outlining why you should do this or that?
> Is it a real "thank you" or is it a "piss off" reply????

It was a very real and genuine "thank you". I greatly prefer helpful  
advice to baby-talk.

>>>> Is it advisable to upgrade CVSNT on the old server before copying the
>>>> data, for instance?
>>>
>>> Installing or uninstalling a CVSNT server version will do exactly zero
>>> on the repository itself.
>>
>> That much, at least, was (relatively) easy to understand ;-)
>
> At least?
> What was it you did not understand?

The winking smiley to show I was being lighthearted in talking about a  
short answer that was immediately and easily understood (even by an idiot)  
as oppsed to your longer answer that is going to lead to further learning  
-- which, I emphasize, is a good thing. I'd rather be helped to learn than  
memorize a set of automatic steps, and that's exactly what you've done, so  
thanks again.

For future reference, I only talk of stupidity when it's my own, and I  
avoid sarcasm in all but the most heated moments of anger, which will  
utterly unmistakeable.


Paul


-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/