Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 05:55:16 +1000 From: Peter Jeremy <PeterJeremy@optushome.com.au> To: Julian Stacey <jhs@berklix.org> Cc: ctm-users@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs -R export -r RELENG_5_2 src Message-ID: <20040815195516.GL423@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> In-Reply-To: <200408151150.i7FBoWsP036421@flip.jhs.private> References: <200408151150.i7FBoWsP036421@flip.jhs.private>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 2004-Aug-15 13:50:32 +0200, Julian Stacey wrote: >/pub/FreeBSD/branches/5.0-stable does not. 5-STABLE doesn't exist yet. The upcoming 5.3-RELEASE is planned as the first 5-STABLE release. See http://www.FreeBSD.org/releases/5.3R/schedule.html >Anyway, it seems those CVSUP users have a luxury we CTM users don't >have: they get to have a more recent kernel, why is that ? I'm not sure what you are getting at here. CVSup talks directly to a CVS repository and so you get to see commits shortly after they are made. CTM generates update batches every 8 hours and relies on CVSup to access the master repository. CVSup is always going to be more up-to-date than CTM. CVSup also allows you to pick arbitrary CVS tags, wheres CTM is limited to RELENG_3, RELENG_4 and head. If this is a problem, use CTM to replicate the repository and do your own checkout. > why can't we have a CTM 5 stable feed. Because 5-STABLE doesn't exist yet. I'm sure that once it exists, you'll be able to get a CTM feed. -- Peter Jeremy
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040815195516.GL423>