Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 06:34:23 -0500 From: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net> To: Paul Richards <p.richards@elsevier.co.uk> Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Wow, CVSup is cool! Message-ID: <l03010508ae7feb4fcae1@[208.2.87.4]> In-Reply-To: <57ohidg328.fsf@tees.elsevier.co.uk> References: Jake Hamby's message of Fri, 4 Oct 1996 13:50:53 -0700 (PDT) <Pine.AUX.3.94.961004133308.12298B-100000@covina.lightside.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>My desire for this is that I needed to go out and got caught up trying >to determine which deltas were missing and getting odd files one at a >time. I really wanted some mechanism that I could just leave running >while I was out that knew to grab the missing/damaged files. Sup was >actually quite good at that function and as a one off recovery >mechanism would still be useful. > >Anyone else think this would be useful? Since this is an infrequent use, it is not worthwhile to support it with a mechanism as heavy as sup. I suggest that you use "mirror" for this. By setting the appropriate include/exclude rules, you get just the files that you want. In my own case, I do not get every base delta. It is "cheaper" for me to simply keep a few more files to carry me back to an earlier delta. What I would like to see is coordination between the sup disptibutions and the ctm distributions so that you can seamlessly use sup to "fix" a tree and ctm to routinely update it, or vise versa.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?l03010508ae7feb4fcae1>