[cvsnt] Benefits of CVSNT vs cvs (cyclic) 1.11.x???

[Rick Silton]

Hi,

I'm considering using CVSNT instead of the "standard"
linux distribution of CVS (1.11.3).  The server will
still run on linux, and we will have a mix of *ix command
line, WinCVS, and Tortoise clients (>150 users).  I've done
some testing and generally like what I've found, but need
to have pretty strong justification to support the cost of
upgrading.  So far I've been able to come up with the list
below but I expect I've missed some (or misunderstood some).
Please add, or comment on any of these or point me to some
other information (I couldn't find any useful faq...).

1. Provides better support for current windows clients (yes,
I know that's vague, but I don't believe it makes sense to
run WinCVS 1.3 against a 1.11.3 server...)

2. Pseudo exclusive lock capability that doesn't require
admin command access (suitable for editing binary files
for example) (cvs edit -c)

3. Solves Daylight Savings Time problem (or is it that
WinCVS 1.3 solves it...?)

4. Provides better security capabilities
   a. ACLs per directory
   b. Sserver protocol (I believe is simply pserver over ssl)
   c. Password management

5. Simple repository browse capability (cvs ls)

6. Atomic commit support (but I don't believe this implies
serialization with checkout & update which I believe is
the real issue.  This is also not on by default and I get
the impression it isn't universally endorsed.)

7. Separate locking process (I'm not positive of the benefit.)

8. Actively under development.


Thanks,

- Rick