Subject: Re: AnonCVS vs Sup2CVS
From: Giles Lean <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 10/18/1999 21:39:11
On Mon, 18 Oct 1999 11:37:46 +0100 (BST) David Brownlee wrote:
> > On Sat, 16 Oct 1999, David Forbes wrote:
> > # Is there anyone still using the combination of sup & CVS regularly or have
> > # most people gone over to anonCVS?
I just rsync'd the CVS tree. It took close to 24 hours on my 28.8
line, but it worked. Would anyone be interested in a CTM distribution
of the CVS tree?
CTM delivers deltas via email, which is typically convenient for
people with dodgy connections. It suffers from requiring an initial
download of a "base" delta which can be many MB in size but once that
is obtained (disk, tape, ftp reget, whatever) the incremental deltas
are quite small.
To head off two arguments:
1. CTM is nicely portable, being written in C (so no CVSup flamewar,
2. Anyone using the deltas need to use them as they would the anonCVS
deltas, and abide by the copyright notices on the entire files.
The deltas are not in the public domain.
CTM is nicely reliable to run; I've run a CTM distribution of -current
for about three years, and aside from a few sup problems (before I
switched to rsync) it has been nicely reliable.