From owner-ctm-users@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 17 15:15:23 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ctm-users@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D1FC37B401 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 15:15:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from storm.FreeBSD.org.uk (storm.FreeBSD.org.uk [194.242.157.42]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83CDB43F93 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 15:15:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mark@grondar.org) Received: from storm.FreeBSD.org.uk (Ugrondar@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by storm.FreeBSD.org.uk (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h5HMFK1f081190; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 23:15:21 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from mark@grondar.org) Received: (from Ugrondar@localhost)h5HMFKOB081189; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 23:15:20 +0100 (BST) X-Authentication-Warning: storm.FreeBSD.org.uk: Ugrondar set sender to mark@grondar.org using -f Received: from grondar.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])h5HMARHh004335; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 23:10:27 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from mark@grondar.org) From: Mark Murray Message-Id: <200306172210.h5HMARHh004335@grimreaper.grondar.org> To: Stephen Montgomery-Smith In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 17 Jun 2003 16:21:07 CDT." <3EEF8643.1040900@math.missouri.edu> Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 23:10:27 +0100 Sender: mark@grondar.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=5.0 tests=EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,FROM_NO_LOWER,IN_REP_TO, QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REPLY_WITH_QUOTES version=2.55 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55 (1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp) cc: ctm-users@freebsd.org Subject: Re: CTM - any users left? X-BeenThere: ctm-users@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CTM User discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 22:15:23 -0000 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