Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 08:02:17 -0700 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: "Richard Wackerbarth" <rkw@dataplex.net> Cc: "Chuck Robey" <chuckr@Glue.umd.edu>, "FreeBSD Current" <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, "FreeBSD Hackers" <hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Re(2): Re(2): Standard Shipping Containers - A Proposal for Distributing FreeBSD Message-ID: <4209.832345337@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "17 May 1996 09:23:53 CDT." <n1379797443.54035@Richard Wackerbarth>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 1) Both sup and ctm have their place in the update scheme. They can be made t o > complement each other. For regular updates, ctm places a lower burden on the > servers. It does not send entire files when just the deltas will do. However, > it relies on the concept that the tree is either read-only (as I think it > should be) or that you have a mechanism to restore it before you move forward . > Sup could be administered in such a manner that it provides the restoration > procedure and the subsequent updates could then be done by ctm. Or you could also make the point that for getting the *CVS* tree, for which read-only access is the norm, sup or CTM are fairly interchangeable and it's back down to choosing by required latency again. As disk space gets cheaper, I think I'm going to be advocating local copies of our CVS repository as the holy grail of src tree management. :-) Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4209.832345337>