Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 16:43:38 -0400 From: Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org> To: Brandon J. Wandersee <brandon.wandersee@gmail.com> Cc: Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org>, "William A. Mahaffey III" <wam@hiwaay.net>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ports upgrade .... Message-ID: <44h9excosl.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> In-Reply-To: <86d1pl2w7g.fsf@WorkBox.Home> (Brandon J. Wandersee's message of "Tue, 19 Apr 2016 15:13:39 -0500") References: <571684CD.2070800@hiwaay.net> <44oa95crg1.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> <86d1pl2w7g.fsf@WorkBox.Home>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Brandon J. Wandersee <brandon.wandersee@gmail.com> writes: > Lowell Gilbert writes: > >> "William A. Mahaffey III" <wam@hiwaay.net> writes: >> >>> It brought down almost 14K updates for 3-ish weeks .... I know the >>> ports effort is a feverish hive of productivity, but that sounded a >>> bit high :-) .... Is that number anomalous, maybe coincident w/ new >>> quarter, something else ? More question than problem, but curious. TIA >>> & have a good one. >> >> If you're switching from one quarterly branch to the next, then sure, >> you've pretty much got three months worth of updates at once. > > I thought portsnap couldn't fetch from the quarterly branches? Or did my > caffeine-starved brain just misread something? :P Or I could just be wrong. I took a quick look at the documentation and the code and I'm not sure.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44h9excosl.fsf>