From owner-freebsd-current Wed Sep 4 12:23:59 1996 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id MAA27912 for current-outgoing; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 12:23:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from austin.polstra.com (austin.polstra.com [206.213.73.10]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA27902 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 12:23:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from austin.polstra.com (jdp@localhost) by austin.polstra.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA18911; Wed, 4 Sep 1996 12:23:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199609041923.MAA18911@austin.polstra.com> To: rkw@dataplex.net (Richard Wackerbarth) cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Latest Current build failure In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 04 Sep 1996 13:55:34 CDT." Date: Wed, 04 Sep 1996 12:23:10 -0700 From: John Polstra Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > >Here is a related idea I've been toying with. I think I could easily > >extend CVSup to support "pseudo-tags". > > The cutoff date could be read from a configuration file on the server. > The cutoff date can also be distributed. Well, sure. I was just proposing an alternative mechanism. > >That seems better than asking the users to change their cutoff dates all > >the time. > > Why so? The same mechanism that selects the cutoff date on the server can > be automatically applied at the user's end. There is no penalty for the > user to "pre-fetch" additional updates. In fact, they might be useful. The existence of pseudo-tags wouldn't prevent users from doing anything. It would just be an additional convenience, for those who chose to use it. -- John Polstra jdp@polstra.com John D. Polstra & Co., Inc. Seattle, Washington USA "Self-knowledge is always bad news." -- John Barth