From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Oct 6 21:45:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA25295 for stable-outgoing; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 21:45:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-stable) Received: from bob.tri-lakes.net ([207.3.81.6]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id VAA25277 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 21:45:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from cdillon@tri-lakes.net) Received: from [207.3.81.152] by bob.tri-lakes.net (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id aa292188 for ; Mon, 6 Oct 1997 23:44:37 -0500 Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.1 [p0] on FreeBSD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 23:35:57 -0000 (GMT) From: Chris Dillon To: Richard Wackerbarth Subject: Re: Fwd: CVSup release identity Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On 07-Oct-97 Richard Wackerbarth wrote: >Chris Dillon writes: > >>Yes. For those that use cvsup, cvsupd could pass the timestamp to >>the client using the local time of the master server (therefore avoiding >>problems cropping up from incorrect local times). > >Remember that the cvsupd that YOU contact is NOT the master server. >The stamp would need to be inserted ONLY when transferring from the >master server. All other distribution systems, including the publicly >accessable cvsupd servers and ctm would simply propogate the designation >that they receive. This could be most readily done by having it as a >string in a file. Aaah, ok. I see your point now.. I am sufficiently uneducated in just what happens after somebody commits a piece of code. Apparently it isn't commited to something like cvsup.freebsd.org, or you would consider that the "master server", correct? How often are the distribution servers updated with the master code? If the update occurs instantly (i.e. propogated the instant it is committed or shortly thereafter), the above wouldn't be a problem, would it? Or do the distribution servers "cvsup" from the master servers in the same fashion we cvsup from the distribution servers? > >>>The only objection ... may not be "user friendly". > >I guess we could do the following: > >Before release: >2.2 (9710061501) > >At release: >2.2.0 (RELEASE) > >After release: >2.2.0 (9710061703) > >Another Release: >2.2.2 (RELEASE) > >And then: >2.2.2 (9710061905) > >That way, anything other than a release would have a timestamp and the >number of the previous release from which it was derived. > >Richard Wackerbarth Makes perfect sense to me. Who else likes this idea? :-) --- Chris Dillon --- cdillon@tri-lakes.net --- Powered by FreeBSD, the best free OS on the planet ---- (http://www.freebsd.org)