Date: 17 May 1996 00:06:16 -0500 From: "Richard Wackerbarth" <rkw@dataplex.net> To: "Nate Williams" <nate@sri.MT.net> Cc: "FreeBSD Hackers" <hackers@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re(2): Re(2): Standard Shipping Containers - A Proposal for Distributing FreeBSD Message-ID: <n1379830899.41486@Richard Wackerbarth>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Nate responds: > > > Not true. If you have direct access to freefall (developers only), you can use (4-sup) to get "up to the minute" copies of the CVS tree. > > > > If YOU can get "up to the minute" updates via sup, it is only because you fall in my category (1). My proposal does not affect a sup server that does not provide synchronous snapshots. > > Couldn't SUP servers provide asynchronous shapshots? No. That would place an enormous burden on the machines and the network just trying to keep them in sync. Besides, it doesn't really buy you much, if anything. I feel that the present methodology of providing the updates every 4,6,12, or 24 hours depending on the rate at which things change is fine. I am not proposing to change that. > > > > The Proposal. > > > > Since all the reasonable distribution mechanisms are based upon server initiated snapshots > > > > > > Since your assumptions are invalid for one of the two most common > > > distribution method, the rest of the proposal is not completely valid. > > Since those who have the direct access are not really inhibited by this proposal, I suggest that you reconsider it in view of the other 99.99% of the folks for whom my assumptions apply. > Cheap shot. I'm not 'elite' class, but what I hear you arguing for is something that the 'members of the elite class' get to implement, which means more work. Since the current system already works and doesn't require any more work for me, I'm bane to consider anything that makes my life more difficult. > > I also don't consider the current system a problem. Thousands of folks are able to get the sources today, and I actually think that the current scheme tends to make sure that folks who get the newest sources have the ability to deal with them, vs. giving them to the 'masses' when they aren't in a state that they can handle. > Both -current and -stable are moving targets, and should only be used by more competent people. If you aren't competent enough to figure out SUP and/or CTM as it is currently, use the SNAPS or wait for the CD. I'll take another shot at that comment. It is no wonder the Linux is more popular. I'm glad that Jordan doesn't adopt your "keep it hard to do" attitude. There are thousands who manage to get the sources IN SPITE OF THE DIFFICULTIES in their way. Whetheror not they SHOULD be getting them is another question. But they do. And in doing so, they consume a very large amount of "our" computer resources. If we can make it possible for them to do things more efficiently, everyone will benefit. And since I am the one who generates the ctm updates for 2.1, I am looking to do something that helps the majority of the users. I am also looking for a way to simplify my life. I do have to assist those users in getting things going. The things that I suggested are really only minor changes to the operating procedure. But those changes and have a major impact on the ease of use of the final product. -- ...computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and weigh only 1/2 tons. -- Popular Mechanics, March 1949
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?n1379830899.41486>