Aaron J. Grier writes:
> On Sat, Nov 18, 2000 at 11:06:12AM -0500, Todd Vierling wrote:
> 
> > We should probably do something a little more uniform here, by
> > creating sup collections that follow the release branches explicitly.
> > "current" would then _always_ follow -current, and we would have
> > "release-1-5", "release-1-6", etc.
> 
> that sounds like a winner to me.  the only reason I started running cvs
> was to continue tracking -current during release cycles.  however, I'd

Could we consider "-stable" also, so that it would follow 1.5, then 
1.5.1_ALPHA, etc?  (e.g. a "-current of the next release")  I would assume
that "release-1-5" would really follow 1.5.0, not 1.5.X, or am I wrong?
Or perhaps just "release" would track this?

e.g.:
	release-1.5	The official 1.5 release
	release-1.5.1	The official 1.5.1 release
	stable-1.5	The 1.5 branch (1.5.1_ALPHA and beyond)
	current		HEAD of the repository.

Of course this would increase the disk usage.

> much prefer sup: cvs is slow and tortuous on my old slow drives, and
> requires some proxy magic since the grinding takes such a long time, my
> NAT times the connection out.  ;)

Have you tried using rsync?  It seems much better to me, other than the
limit of 4 connections(*).  I use it to pull down the anoncvs repository
directly.  Then I can checkout whatever I want at LAN speeds rather
than over dialup.  Also you can use rsync for the same files that sup
provides. (AFAIK)

(*) Does TNF need some beefier hardware for {ftp,sup,rsync}.netbsd.org
to increase the number of connections?  Or is this a bandwidth issue?
I would certainly be willing to donate some hardware if it would help.

-Andrew