Date: Wed, 04 Sep 1996 09:58:30 -0700 From: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> To: jhs@FreeBSD.org Cc: current@FreeBSD.org, gibbs@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: Latest Current build failure Message-ID: <199609041658.JAA18063@austin.polstra.com> In-Reply-To: <199609041519.IAA16653@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Julian Stacey <jhs@freebsd.org>: > >CTM is asynchronous to net disturbances, so ideal for those with > >poor net access, whereas cvsup requires a net in good condition. Justin Gibbs <gibbs@freebsd.org>: > 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. Justin is right. CVSup works very well under poor network conditions. That was one of the primary design goals. In fact, CVSup almost certainly works better under adverse conditions than SMTP, which delivers your CTM updates. Julian, have you even _tried_ CVSup?? I watch the server logs pretty closely, and I don't recall seeing your name in them. It's not in anybody's interest to start a "CVSup vs. CTM" war. They each have advantages and disadvantages. People are welcome to use the one that serves their needs the best. (Sup, on the other hand, can die die die, as far as I'm concerned. ;-) But if you're going to comment publically on either CVSup or CTM, you really ought to know what you're talking about first. -- John Polstra jdp@polstra.com John D. Polstra & Co., Inc. Seattle, Washington USA "Self-knowledge is always bad news." -- John Barth
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199609041658.JAA18063>