Date: Thu, 2 Feb 95 16:33:39 MST From: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) To: wollman@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Source Tree Ettiquite (was Re: sup: Ok, I'm gonna do it.) Message-ID: <9502022333.AA15211@cs.weber.edu> In-Reply-To: <9502022322.AA22056@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu> from "Garrett Wollman" at Feb 2, 95 06:22:34 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > <<On Thu, 2 Feb 95 14:22:12 MST, terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) said: > > > Thus we are left with CVS + 1 snapshot, rather than CVS + 2(3) snapshots. > > Which is still more disk than I have available to me for this > purpose. This is for the distribution site, and the site where the release engineering is done (if different). Programmers working on pieces of the whole only check out the parts they are going to work on from a remotely accessed tree. How do you handle this now? You either have the whole tree locally or you do not. In which case the partial tree checkout techniques still apply. Checking things into a source repository makes no sense unless you expect a conflict with someone else, or expect to need to share a common source base with someone else. Terry Lambert terry@cs.weber.edu --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9502022333.AA15211>