Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!news.mathworks.com!news.pbi.net!cbgw3.lucent.com!nntphub.cb.lucent.com!ssbunews.ih.lucent.com!news
From: Peter Mutsaers <plm@lucent.com>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: CTM, CVSup or sup? Which is best?
Date: 07 Mar 1997 09:29:00 +0100
Organization: Lucent Technologies, Indian Hill
Lines: 17
Sender: plm@hzsbc259.nl.lucent.com
Message-ID: <y7zrahsumur.fsf@hzsbc259.nl.lucent.com>
References: <331B8BEF.794BDF32@worldnet.att.net> <5fnm7l$282@uriah.heep.sax.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hzsbc259.nl.lucent.com
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.4.15/Emacs 19.34
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:36736
>> On 7 Mar 1997 00:07:17 GMT, j@uriah.heep.sax.de (J Wunsch) said:
JW> CTM is the lightest load (on the client side), it even works well via
JW> email only. On the downside, it has a higher latency than sup or
JW> cvsup (currently ~ 6 hours or more).
Another drawback: If you modify (accidentally) one file then the next
CTM update to touch that file will fail. From then you have to reget
all of the CTM source (about 50MB?) to get in sync again.
This is the main reason I switched to cvsup (on the occasion that I
found out I had to get all source code again because one of the files
had gotten out of sync).
--
Peter Mutsaers Lucent Technologies, Network Systems
plm@lucent.com Huizen, the Netherlands