From owner-freebsd-current Wed Sep 4 08:20:02 1996 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id IAA16690 for current-outgoing; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 08:20:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id IAA16653; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 08:19:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199609041519.IAA16653@freefall.freebsd.org> To: "Julian H. Stacey" cc: rkw@dataplex.net (Richard Wackerbarth), gjennejohn@frt.dec.com, current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Latest Current build failure In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 04 Sep 1996 10:54:10 +0200." <199609040854.KAA00846@vector.jhs.no_domain> Date: Wed, 04 Sep 1996 08:19:58 -0700 From: "Justin T. Gibbs" Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >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 ===========================================