Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 13:41:38 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: alk@Think.COM (Tony Kimball) Cc: terry@lambert.org, questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: why so many ways to stay in sync? Message-ID: <199605142041.NAA12965@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199605141903.OAA26582@compound.Think.COM> from "Tony Kimball" at May 14, 96 02:03:10 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Doesn't ctm obsolete sup? > > Doesn't Usenet obsolere email? > > The closer analogy would be "Doesn't email obsolete Usenet?". > But it still would not be apposite, for ctm deltas are delivered > by ftp *or* by email, so that ctm subsumes both of the analogous > roles. "Could not a form of email which offer both push and pull > access modes obsolete Usenet?" I think it could, all other things > being equal, were my mail categorized automatically and the > availability of all selective modes of content selection insured. Sup is a connection per site, whereas CTM can be distributed by FTP mirrors. CTM distribution is closer to usenet because it's closer to store-and-foward flood model distribution. The problem with store-and-forward is that it is an unreliable delivery mechanism; SUP is closer to demand mirroring, and so is really more useful. SUP snapshots tend to be more buildable (in my experience). Finally, using SUP seems to let me sync multiple trees easier than CTM (I run my own vendor branch recreation for some subprojects now). The real problem is that CVS sucks for people with commit privs... it would be better if there were a method to implement local delta-based checkins so you could maintain one branch tag and bunches of checkins. Oh well. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199605142041.NAA12965>