Community technical support mailing list was retired 2010 and replaced with a professional technical support team. For assistance please contact: Pre-sales Technical support via email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
"David Somers" <dsomers at omz13.com> wrote in message news:ebn7a9$rjm$1 at paris.nodomain.org... > Use modules2 (or modules) to share modules/files. > > IMHO, modules2 is easier to use than modules. YMMV. Definitions in the "modules" are use often on our side; also to do some complex changes in the directory structure. It works and caused no problems when we switch our repository from CVS to CVSNT.´Nevertheless you need always some iterations, until the definitions in the modules file leads to the expected results. When I look to the bug reports w.r.t "modules2" in this list, I conclude that the usage of modules2 with CVSNT 2.5.x should be deprecated. I do not fully understand why "modules2" is not working but "modules" does, since already with "modules" you can do a total remapping of the physical repository directory structurs to an arbitrary logical directory structure in your sandbox. > > Can risks be reduced, if the link is protected (no commit possible) via a > > lock (-k+x) or marked as static (-k+s)? > > Possibly... you'd have to manually lock/unlock the files affected... > probably easier to use modules/modules2. > According to Tony it'll work until the very first commit, then the files will be independent. Probably already setting a tag will cause this divorce. As far as I understand I could block a commit via "-k+x" and "-k+s", but I could not block the setting of a tag to this file. Best regards Jan Giesen