Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 20:08:36 -0600 From: "Matthew D. Fuller" <fullermd@futuresouth.com> To: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net> Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: /usr/ports/ too big? Message-ID: <20000210200836.C13279@futuresouth.com> In-Reply-To: <00021020011700.00825@localhost.localdomain> References: <200002102358.PAA03763@mina.sr.hp.com> <00021018491700.00777@localhost.localdomain> <20000210185906.A13279@futuresouth.com> <00021020011700.00825@localhost.localdomain>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 07:46:11PM -0600, a little birdie told me that Richard Wackerbarth remarked > > > You only keep it if you need > > it for some reason. So what you're saying is, 'I need the tree for XXX, > > but I shouldn't be forced to have it'. If all you need to do is look at > > a file's history once in a blue moon, what's wrong with the cvsweb > > interface, or anon cvs, etc. > For the "ancient" part, those are great. However, they don't address the > greater detail that I need of "recent" history. I don't get it. Really, cvsweb at the least gives you MORE 'recent' history than you could get locally, since you always have up to an hour (or more) lag between a change and your access via CVSup. What detail does a local CVS repo supply that the above don't? > I have one copy, you have one copy, he has one copy ... Replicated around > the world. That's what I mean about the entire repo on numerous machines. > I venture that the majority of the volume of most of those repo's is not used. Probably. I'd also say that probably a lot of the volume in EVERYTHING in the world isn't used, even stuff unrelated to computers. Look at fast food for instance. By the same reasoning, we shouldn't have seperate copies of binaries on everyone's system, replicated around the world. I venture that most people don't ever use a lot of the binaries on their systems. When was the last time you used ctm? Or dtmfdecode? enigma? etc. It's distributed and replicated because it's much faster to work with a local copy than a remote one. The people who do it think it's worth the tradeoff of using more local storage. > The problem is "packaging". You have the choice "all or nothing". I would > prefer to be able to keep (and eventually use transparently) a combination of > up-to-date history on HD and ancient history on archive CD's or the net. Oh, so you want a version of CVS that only keeps 'recent' revisions around; sorta an auto-expiration of revisions once they reach a certain age. Good luck writing it, or finding one; at the least, it goes against the whole purpose of a revision control system. -- Matthew Fuller (MF4839) | fullermd@over-yonder.net Unix Systems Administrator | fullermd@futuresouth.com Specializing in FreeBSD | http://www.over-yonder.net/ "The only reason I'm burning my candle at both ends, is because I haven't figured out how to light the middle yet" To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000210200836.C13279>