From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri May 17 08:02:30 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id IAA22868 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 17 May 1996 08:02:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id IAA22863; Fri, 17 May 1996 08:02:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.7.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id IAA04211; Fri, 17 May 1996 08:02:17 -0700 (PDT) To: "Richard Wackerbarth" cc: "Chuck Robey" , "FreeBSD Current" , "FreeBSD Hackers" Subject: Re: Re(2): Re(2): Standard Shipping Containers - A Proposal for Distributing FreeBSD In-reply-to: Your message of "17 May 1996 09:23:53 CDT." Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 08:02:17 -0700 Message-ID: <4209.832345337@time.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > 1) Both sup and ctm have their place in the update scheme. They can be made t o > complement each other. For regular updates, ctm places a lower burden on the > servers. It does not send entire files when just the deltas will do. However, > it relies on the concept that the tree is either read-only (as I think it > should be) or that you have a mechanism to restore it before you move forward . > Sup could be administered in such a manner that it provides the restoration > procedure and the subsequent updates could then be done by ctm. Or you could also make the point that for getting the *CVS* tree, for which read-only access is the norm, sup or CTM are fairly interchangeable and it's back down to choosing by required latency again. As disk space gets cheaper, I think I'm going to be advocating local copies of our CVS repository as the holy grail of src tree management. :-) Jordan