Re: CVS co-existing with RCS?

[Laine Stump]

Don't do this! CVS uses lock files (to avoid simlutaneous modification
of the same ,v file by different processes) which are not known to
RCS. Because of this, using RCS and CVS at the same time can lead to
corrupted files.

Bruce Cota <address@hidden> writes:

> It seems taht CVS and RCS history files are identical, but that CVS
> and RCS expect those files to be in different places (a CVS repository
> in one case, the current directory or an RCS subdirectory in the other
> case).
> 
> So, could I get away with making sym-links called "RCS" from a common
> working directory into a CVS repository, so that some developers could
> use rcs commands from the common directory while others use cvs to
> access the repository?
> 
> This is to provide a transition for a site that currently uses RCS to
> support a web-based application.  The development web server uses the
> most recently checked out html files, CGIs, etc and a big, complex
> makefile moves the most recently checked in files from the RCS
> subdirectories to a test server or production server.  I'm pushing
> hard to move us to CVS, but only a few users will have their own web
> servers to work with, so only they will be able to use CVS "as it is
> intended".  Changing the build system (which expects RCS
> subdirectories) is also tricky.
> 
> So I'm wondering if we can allow most users (and the build system) to
> continue use RCS while a few users switch to CVS.
> 
> The big wrinkle I see is that when a user commits changes to the CVS
> repository, those changes will not become visible in the working
> directory which is under RCS control.  
> 
> Is there anything else wrong with this plan?
> 
> Thanks for any advice.
> 
> -Bruce Cota
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Info-cvs mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs