Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 13:13:50 -0600 From: Kirk Strauser <kirk@strauser.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: cvsup vs. portsnap (was Re: cvsup problem) Message-ID: <200511091313.50741.kirk@strauser.com> In-Reply-To: <200511091044.04253.kstewart@owt.com> References: <CA513920FC73A14B964AB258D77EA8D60B559A@mx1.masongeneral.com> <200511091224.13143.kirk@strauser.com> <200511091044.04253.kstewart@owt.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--nextPart1224237.IUAtTk56ce Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Wednesday 09 November 2005 12:44, Kent Stewart wrote: > If you aren't going to rebuild everything, every time you cvsup, don't do > it. Out of curiosity, are 10 small cvsup sessions worse than 1 session with 10= =20 times the changes? Anyway, I've fallen in love with portsnap. Is there any reason in the worl= d=20 why a normal user (eg one that doesn't need to fetch a version of ports=20 from a specific date or tag) shouldn't completely switch to portsnap today? =2D-=20 Kirk Strauser --nextPart1224237.IUAtTk56ce Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iD8DBQBDckpu5sRg+Y0CpvERAvCiAKCUOFm98Qwf4GtkAaM5OZlbzZ2jJwCfbN4k CRiNlprzGiLIyiROiSzuKrQ= =pYMX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1224237.IUAtTk56ce--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200511091313.50741.kirk>