Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 23:10:27 +0100 From: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.org> To: Stephen Montgomery-Smith <stephen@math.missouri.edu> Cc: ctm-users@freebsd.org Subject: Re: CTM - any users left? Message-ID: <200306172210.h5HMARHh004335@grimreaper.grondar.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 17 Jun 2003 16:21:07 CDT." <3EEF8643.1040900@math.missouri.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Stephen Montgomery-Smith writes: > I think that there are actually some benefits to making ctm into a > port. Right now ctm does not work properly with the very latest > cvs-xEmpty deltas, because ctm does not handle files that large. I > submitted a PR a while back, but last I checked nothing has happened > with it. But if ctm were a port, I think that these kinds of fixes > would take place a lot faster. Conceivable. > I think that we would need to update the CTM documentation to reflect > this change, but actually I think the CTM documentation needs some > changes anyway. > > Indeed when I started out using CTM, I found the docs quite confusing, > and it was only through a process of trial and error that I figured it > out. CTM was quite a clever hack at the time it was conceived, but it never really made it out of "hack" status. The CTM builder is as fragile as hell (I did the job myself a few years ago), and is incredibly resource hungry. It buys its owner very little, and its returns are really only in the goodwill department. If it is really useful, it really needs someone to own it from the builder downwards, and it needs a strong update to bring it into the 21st century. M -- Mark Murray iumop ap!sdn w,I idlaH
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200306172210.h5HMARHh004335>