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

[Glen Starrett]

>>>>>
But doesn't a separate locking process also give the opportunity for finer
user controls.  IE, without the lock server, I can't give a user read-only
(no commit) access to a module as the process has to create, write, then
delete a lock file.
<<<<<

I used the Lock Server in my setup for that main reason--but like Tony said
the LockDir would have worked too.  I figured it was already running,
doesn't need cleaning after a crash, is one less directory to maintain, so
it was an overall superior option.

Glen Starrett

-----Original Message-----
From: cvsnt-bounces at cvsnt.org [mailto:cvsnt-bounces at cvsnt.org]On Behalf
Of Ian Epperson
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 1:30 PM
To: 'Tony Hoyle'; 'cvsnt at cvsnt.org'
Subject: RE: [cvsnt] Re: Benefits of CVSNT vs cvs (cyclic) 1.11.x???


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tony Hoyle [mailto:tmh at nodomain.org]
> Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 12:50 PM
> To: cvsnt at cvsnt.org
> Subject: [cvsnt] Re: Benefits of CVSNT vs cvs (cyclic) 1.11.x???
>
>
> Rick Silton wrote:
> > 7. Separate locking process (I'm not positive of the benefit.)
>
> If the server crashes then you never get stray lock files,
> which means you
> don't need to have an admin log into the server and clean up.
>
> Tony

But doesn't a separate locking process also give the opportunity for finer
user controls.  IE, without the lock server, I can't give a user read-only
(no commit) access to a module as the process has to create, write, then
delete a lock file.
_______________________________________________
cvsnt mailing list
cvsnt at cvsnt.org
http://www.cvsnt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cvsnt