Date: Tue, 09 Jan 1996 14:23:01 +0100 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.tfs.com> To: rkw@dataplex.net (Richard Wackerbarth) Cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Syncing CTM and SNAPS? Message-ID: <633.821193781@critter.tfs.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 09 Jan 1996 07:14:09 CST." <v02140a05ad1818b2fb50@[199.183.109.242]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >> If you make a SNAP based on any ctm source, then it is unnecessary to > >> distribute the source distributions as a part of the SNAP. In fact, this > >> idea could be extended to the regular release distributions. > > > >Well, there's the `subdivision problem' you yourself mention. > > I'm wondering if we should subdivide the CTM distributions. > If we did that, I see no reason that the source distribution files could > not be in CTM format rather than their current compressed form. The deltas are so small that it would be pointless I think. I have thought about this a bit, and I'm not sure that I like the idea too much. CTM is a "push" technology where as sup is a "pull" technology. I have this vision of too many people saying "Everyting and the kitchen-sink via CTM, and our sendmail sinking under the load... -- Poul-Henning Kamp | phk@FreeBSD.ORG FreeBSD Core-team. http://www.freebsd.org/~phk | phk@login.dknet.dk Private mailbox. whois: [PHK] | phk@ref.tfs.com TRW Financial Systems, Inc. Future will arrive by its own means, progress not so.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?633.821193781>