From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Feb  2 16:17:22 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C05D416A4CE
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Wed,  2 Feb 2005 16:17:22 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net
	[207.172.4.60])	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77C5643D48
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Wed,  2 Feb 2005 16:17:22 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from roberthuff@rcn.com)
Received: from 209-6-197-67.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com
	([209.6.197.67] helo=jerusalem.litteratus.org.litteratus.org)
	by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #7)
	id 1CwNBw-000383-00
	for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Wed, 02 Feb 2005 11:17:21 -0500
From: Robert Huff <roberthuff@rcn.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <16896.64238.660704.447338@jerusalem.litteratus.org>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 11:08:14 -0500
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <4200F87F.6070205@orchid.homeunix.org>
References: <20050202144907.18974.qmail@web51709.mail.yahoo.com>
	<4200F87F.6070205@orchid.homeunix.org>
X-Mailer: VM 7.17 under 21.5  (beta16) "celeriac" XEmacs Lucid
Subject: Re: keeping freebsd uptodate - doubt
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>,
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>,
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 16:17:22 -0000



Karol Kwiatkowski writes:

>  Someone else should comment on that, but I think updating (cvsup)
>  ports tree once a week should be often enough to track changes
>  and rare enough to not overload mirrors.

	The other theory involves more frequent (i,e, daily) but
presumably smaller updates.
	On the gripping hand ... I'm not convinced the mirrors are
in danger of overload except possibly at the end of a ports freeze.


			Robert Huff