Date: Wed, 24 Jul 1996 22:36:13 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> To: Julian Assange <proff@suburbia.net> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: anoncvs Message-ID: <199607250436.WAA23559@rover.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 25 Jul 1996 12:50:03 %2B1000
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
: Suping the CVS tree sounds like a an expnseive proposition, in terms of : bandwidth and drive space. Rsyncing the CVS tree I would be : acceptable in terms of on-going bandwidth, but doesn't address the other : issues. As someone who lives on ctm for FreeBSD and cvs for OpenBSD, I like them both. I like ctm for FreeBSD because I can stick a filter in my incoming mail and have it automatically update my CVS tree for me. However, it is *VERY* expensive in terms of disk. Another 250 Mb of disk space just to have acccess to -current. I like the OpenBSD because I can still do all the cvs stuff I do with FreeBSD and the repository is costing someone else disk space. It is very competitive with FreeBSD's ctm in terms of bandwidth because CVS just sends me patches (unless they are too big, in which case it sends me whole files). cvs update once a day (or week) takes about 5 (or 20) minutes. And my OpenBSD tree uses 250 Mb less than my FreeBSD tree. And I get to do cvs log, etc as well. I have 1.7G of disk and am still too tight on space. The CVS tree for FreeBSD reprents 15% of my disk space, which is rather signficant (at least to me). I can't install TeX because I have a CVS tree :-(. Given that FreeBSD has ctm, I'd say it is about a wash. Sure it would be nice to have this as an option, but it isn't completely required. It would be useful for those people that are tight on space and literally can't afford to get more (even at today's insanely low prices). Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199607250436.WAA23559>