Date: Wed, 04 Sep 1996 11:36:53 -0500 From: Steve Price <sprice@hiwaay.net> To: "Justin T. Gibbs" <gibbs@freefall.freebsd.org> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Latest Current build failure Message-ID: <322DB025.7A724F7C@hiwaay.net> References: <199609041519.IAA16653@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Justin T. Gibbs wrote: > > >But CVSup is not the only appropriate solution ... > >We've had developers who produced useful code but were doomed to bad coms > >links. CTM is asynchronous to net disturbances, so ideal for those with > >poor net access, whereas cvsup requires a net in good condition. > > This isn't true since CVSup is a streaming protocol instead of a > synchronous like SUP. I know quite a few people who switched from > CTM to CVSup that have poor links to the net. > > >Julian > >-- > >Julian H. Stacey jhs@freebsd.org http://www.freebsd.org/~jhs/ > > -- > Justin T. Gibbs > =========================================== > FreeBSD: Turning PCs into workstations > =========================================== I have switched to CVSup. My connection to the net from home is via a 28.8K modem to my ISP. I am very happy with the responsiveness of CVSup. As an example, I updated my local copy of the CVS tree (with about 4/5 days of changes) in 3 minutes and 46 seconds. My link is probably not as bad as some people's but I would say that that's pretty awesome. With CTM I used to get the patches four times a day and had to apply them manually. Which is not bad, but CVSup does everything automagically and I get the deltas when I want them. :) Steve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?322DB025.7A724F7C>