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.
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/