Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:25:41 +1100 From: "Jan Mikkelsen" <janm@transactionware.com> To: "'Nate Williams'" <nate@yogotech.com>, "'Terry Lambert'" <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: "'Sean Chittenden'" <sean@chittenden.org>, "'Sergey Babkin'" <babkin@bellatlantic.net>, <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: making CVS more convenient Message-ID: <003301c2ec13$5c8614e0$fc5807ca@mosm1> In-Reply-To: <15989.1782.166458.477601@emerger.yogotech.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Nate Williams wrote: > The other solution to the problem is the P4 route. Making things so > darn effecient that there's little need to have a local mirror. Where > this falls down is when the remote developer doesn't have a 24x7 > connection to the main repository. From what I've been told ClearCase > allows for 'mirrored read-only' repositories similar to what > most of the > open-source CVS developers have been doing with sup/CVSup for years, > although it's nowhere near as effecient as CVSup at creating > snapshots. The current version of Perforce has "p4proxy" which caches a local copy of the depot files used. To the p4 client, it looks just like the server. The Perforce model makes this a bit easier with a significant amount of client state stored on the server. What is the status of Perforce in the FreeBSD project? Is the issue the absence of a "p4up"? Licensing? Inertia? Regards, Jan Mikkelsen To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?003301c2ec13$5c8614e0$fc5807ca>