Re: [HACKERS] Contributing
От | Thomas Lockhart |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Contributing |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 379491C6.839F5B39@alumni.caltech.edu обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Contributing (The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Contributing
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
The Hermit Hacker wrote: > > On Sat, 17 Jul 1999, Thomas Lockhart wrote: > > > > > What is the ideal setup to have when contributing to PG development? > > > AFAIK, the main advantage of CVSup is that you have a complete copy of > > > the CVS archive on your own machine, which means you can examine cvs > > > commit log messages, pull old versions, and so forth without having > > > to contact hub.org. If you just use "cvs update" periodically then > > > you only have the current sources, and have to use remote cvs to do > > > things like checking log messages. > > > > The other principle advantage to CVSup is its efficiency in bringing > > over updates. It is very fast and really minimizes the bandwidth. > > Is this less then when using the -z option for CVS? I believe so. I'm just guessing at CVS's behavior, but I *know* that CVSup only sends compressed diffs of the changes to update a cvs repository or a checked-out tree. afaik CVS sends the entire file, compressing it for transmission much as does CVSup. > > Or find that hub.org disappears occasionally, or... > We think we just licked that problem... Not entirely, unless you can guarantee uptime on Internet routing. I see outages on occasion which I don't think are local to hub.org. That's no news to anyone, but it does seem relevant when discussing the merits of local vs remote repositories. - Thomas -- Thomas Lockhart lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu South Pasadena, California
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: