From owner-freebsd-current Thu May 16 21:00:32 1996 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id VAA07351 for current-outgoing; Thu, 16 May 1996 21:00:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from DATAPLEX.NET (SHARK.DATAPLEX.NET [199.183.109.241]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id VAA07339 for ; Thu, 16 May 1996 21:00:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 199.183.109.242 by DATAPLEX.NET with SMTP (MailShare 1.0fc5); Thu, 16 May 1996 23:00:03 -0600 Message-ID: Date: 16 May 1996 22:59:43 -0500 From: "Richard Wackerbarth" Subject: Re(2): Standard Shipping Containers - A Proposal for Distributing FreeBSD To: "FreeBSD Current" , "FreeBSD Hackers" , "freebsd-stable@freebsd.org" , "Nate Williams" X-Mailer: Mail*Link PT/Internet 1.6.0 Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > Not true. If you have direct access to freefall (developers only), you can use (4-sup) to get "up to the minute" copies of the CVS tree. If YOU can get "up to the minute" updates via sup, it is only because you fall in my category (1). My proposal does not affect a sup server that does not provide synchronous snapshots. > > The Proposal. > > Since all the reasonable distribution mechanisms are based upon server initiated snapshots > > Since your assumptions are invalid for one of the two most common > distribution method, the rest of the proposal is not completely valid. Since those who have the direct access are not really inhibited by this proposal, I suggest that you reconsider it in view of the other 99.99% of the folks for whom my assumptions apply. I hope there is somebody out there who cares about the difficulties of the "average joe" and doesn't simply brush off those problems because they are a member of the elite class who get to play by their own rules. -- ...computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and weigh only 1/2 tons. -- Popular Mechanics, March 1949