Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 22:19:37 -0600 From: Nate Williams <nate@sri.MT.net> To: "Richard Wackerbarth" <rkw@dataplex.net> Cc: "FreeBSD Hackers" <hackers@FreeBSD.org>, "Nate Williams" <nate@sri.MT.net> Subject: Re: Re(2): Standard Shipping Containers - A Proposal for Distributing FreeBSD Message-ID: <199605170419.WAA25739@rocky.sri.MT.net> In-Reply-To: <n1379834885.1499@Richard Wackerbarth> References: <n1379834885.1499@Richard Wackerbarth>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[ Cut down the mailing list to one ] > > 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. Couldn't SUP servers provide asynchronous shapshots? > > > 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. Cheap shot. I'm not 'elite' class, but what I hear you arguing for is something that the 'members of the elite class' get to implement, which means more work. Since the current system already works and doesn't require any more work for me, I'm bane to consider anything that makes my life more difficult. I also don't consider the current system a problem. Thousands of folks are able to get the sources today, and I actually think that the current scheme tends to make sure that folks who get the newest sources have the ability to deal with them, vs. giving them to the 'masses' when they aren't in a state that they can handle. Both -current and -stable are moving targets, and should only be used by more competent people. If you aren't competent enough to figure out SUP and/or CTM as it is currently, use the SNAPS or wait for the CD. Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199605170419.WAA25739>