From owner-freebsd-current Sat Sep 16 15:47:02 1995 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id PAA02972 for current-outgoing; Sat, 16 Sep 1995 15:47:02 -0700 Received: from DATAPLEX.NET (SHARK.DATAPLEX.NET [199.183.109.241]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id PAA02965 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 1995 15:46:58 -0700 Received: from [199.183.109.242] by DATAPLEX.NET with SMTP (MailShare 1.0fc5); Sat, 16 Sep 1995 17:08:48 -0600 X-Sender: rkw@shark.dataplex.net Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 16 Sep 1995 17:08:49 -0500 To: "Rodney W. Grimes" From: rkw@dataplex.net (Richard Wackerbarth) Subject: Re: Which SUP files are available and where ? Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Sender: owner-current@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk At 4:19 PM 9/16/95, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: >On the sup vs ctm, well, when ctm can fix my tree I just splattered >all over I'll switch, until then I will leave it to the others to >use. CTM is slightly fragile with respect to anyone doing work in >there local tree, while sup has documented mechanism to deal with >it (backup is a really nice option, as are old and keep :-). Some >how I think it will be a long time before CTM can offer that level >of fuctionality. The "features" that I like about CTM are 1) the transfer overhead is reduced and 2) the system is event driven rather than polled. This implies that the load on a server is greatly reduced. In particular, I think this can become an advantage when a release becomes "very-stable" and only get occasional bug fixes. Your points about the ability of sup to repair a damaged tree are valid. I tend to forget them because I can easily restore from the (local) mirror site. I am still willing to generate CTM updates for -stable and mail them out just as soon as I can learn the secrets. ---- Richard Wackerbarth rkw@dataplex.net