From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Jun 27 21:12:18 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id VAA04592 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 27 Jun 1996 21:12:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [204.144.255.49]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id VAA04362; Thu, 27 Jun 1996 21:11:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rover.village.org (8.7.5/8.6.6) with SMTP id WAA17865; Thu, 27 Jun 1996 22:11:01 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <199606280411.WAA17865@rover.village.org> To: "Gary Palmer" Subject: Re: cvs-cur-2135 Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp , James Raynard , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG In-reply-to: Your message of Sat, 22 Jun 1996 15:24:04 BST Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 22:11:01 -0600 From: Warner Losh Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk : Perhaps a rate limited version of the mail lists should be made for : those who want that facility? I would say that not EVERYONE wants to : do that. I know that I'd still prefer CTM over SUP, even if I had a : half-way decent net.link... Hmmm. I'd think that splitting the large CTM deltas into smaller parts wouldn't be a horrible idea as well. I know they are split into parts for mailing, but if part 27 of 40 buggers up, then you have to get all 40 parts again via FTP. Combined with a rate limited list (ctm-cur-slow) this would solve the problem. Just a thought. Unless someone is motivated to do this, however, it won't happen. I have enough bandwidth to cope with even the biggest changes. CTM is nicer for me because it uses less of that bandwidth than SUP. And that will be true when the great labeling comes in, as only the diffs are send down the wire. I'm happy with the status quo, so I have no strong motivation to contribute this :-(. Warner