Subject: Re: `use sup' not tar balls ....
To: Andrew Cagney <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: David Maxwell <email@example.com>
Date: 01/13/1995 10:06:45
> Excepts from Andrew
> Excerpts from Excerpts from mail: 12-Jan-95 Re: `use sup' not tar balls.. Ted
> Lemon@vix.com (346)
> > I wonder how useful a daily context diff would be? It might be small
> > enough that people who care could just have it automagically mailed to
> > them...
> Excerpts from Excerpts from mail: 12-Jan-95 Re: `use sup' not tar balls.. Chris G
> Demetriou@LAGAVU (209)
> > except it's not at all trivial to generate.
> I'll actually agree with cgd on this one :-).
> I think a `pull by demand' approach would be better and safer.
> Following on from this, the simplest pull approach I'm aware of is
> requesting entire files. While true, it isn't as efficient as diffs, it
> is much simpler and far more reliable. Remember the war? (MINIX patches
(P.S. Sup works fine for me, but...)
How about tagging the CVS archive when the tarballs are made, and adding a
script to the commit process to take a diff between that tag and the commited
file (could be a background process so it doesn't slow you down too much.)
and dumps it in a directory for retrieval. Anyone wanting to get completely
up to date just gets the current tarballs+diffs, and once you're current
with the diffs you never need tarballs again. Diffs could be ftp'd, or
possibly sent to a NetBSD-diffs mailing-list.