Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 12:27:24 -0600 From: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net> To: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Version Resolution? Message-ID: <l03110701b0a0c5b23725@[208.2.87.4]> In-Reply-To: <199711251758.KAA27804@mt.sri.com> References: <l03110700b0a0b8ad27f2@[208.2.87.4]> <l03110701b0a0a3722b14@[208.2.87.4]> <l03110707b0a090dacca7@[208.2.87.4]> <l03110703b09f8a1710e6@[208.2.87.4]> <l03110700b09e72675ae9@[208.2.87.4]> <199711240216.CAA28304@awfulhak.demon.co.uk> <199711240504.WAA22051@mt.sri.com> <199711241922.UAA21949@bitbox.follo.net> <199711242223.PAA24374@mt.sri.com> <199711251530.IAA27130@mt.sri.com> <199711251649.JAA27402@mt.sri.com> <l03110700b0a0b8ad27f2@[208.2.87.4]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 11:58 AM -0600 11/25/97, Nate Williams wrote: >> >The CVS bits are available to them because >> >it was easy to do so and it wasn't too much of a burden on the >> >developers. But, if you aren't looking at them, there is absolutely *NO* >> >need to get them, since CVSup of the bits is more effecient and uses >> >less space than getting the CVS tree. >> >> You miss my argument that the present methodology FORCES anyone who has ANY >> need for current revisions to take ALL of them. > >And you miss the argument that anyone who needs to look at recent >history can do that now without the CVS tree. Not if they lack the on-line access to which you refer. >Here's a thought, let's shackle all of the developers because Richard >can't afford a couple megabytes of disk space, Well, since I have about 2GB devoted to just FreeBSD source .... I think that you miss the point. I am looking for things to simplify the HUGE startup and continued processing cost of repeatedly processing the same unchanging data. As it is, I am spending many CPU hours each day just verifying that the bulk of the cvs tree has not changed and localizing the small portion of the files that did change. Further, all the CVSup servers are having to do similar analysis passing over a lot of unchanged data for every client update. If we were not stuck in your methodology, those functions could potentially be made less burdensome. This would permit better response, etc. However, since these inefficiencies are not on your machine and a change might cause you to do things a little differently, it appears that you are unwilling to allow it to be discussed. >It's too bad that you don't understand that all you're doing is wasting >my time, and unfortunately I'm too stupid to ignore you. I could be >actually fixing laptop support bugs, but instead I'm wasting my time >arguing with someone w/out a clue. Perhaps it is you who is without the clue. >Finally, you're the only one advocating getting rid of the CVS history, That is a misrepresentation of my position. I am advocating a repartitioning of the information so that the static portion can be omitted or otherwise processed in a more efficient manner. I am NOT advocating the elimination of the information. >ps. I yes, I understand what 'not much disk space' means. My laptop >development box has a 340MB partition for FreeBSD, which *includes* the >kernel CVS bits and the entire checked out source tree + obj tree. To >say it's tight is an understatement, but to give up CVS history for a >little bit of disk space would be simply ludicrous. Richard Wackerbarth
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?l03110701b0a0c5b23725>