Re: [HACKERS] CVS target for docs

Tom, Michael doesn't work on anything else other then docs and ecpg...why
would he want to update everything?

Right now, to get at ecpg, he check's out 'pgsql-ecpg'...and pgsql-doc is
always an available module...

Not sure why such a simple thing needed to be so complicated :(


On Sun, 21 Mar 1999, Tom Lane wrote:

> > I'm currently thinking about moving to cvs completely but wonder how much
> > more network traffic this will cause.
> 
> FWIW, I've been using remote cvs from my home machine and it seems to
> work very well, and reasonably speedily.  I ran a "cvs update" on the
> Postgres tree just now, while watching hub's CPU load via "top" in
> another window.  Elapsed time was 2m 45s, and the server's CPU usage
> on hub never got above 3%.  This run only had to pull a couple of files,
> since I'd just updated yesterday --- a typical run probably takes more
> like 4m or so.  Network bandwidth doesn't seem to be the limiting factor
> in an update (to judge from das blinkenlights on my router), though it
> is the bottleneck in a full checkout.
> 
> If what you're currently doing is cvs or cvsup into a local directory
> at hub, then transferring the files to home via tar and ftp, I've got
> to think that remote cvs is a vastly more efficient and less error-prone
> solution.
> 
> BTW, I recommend putting
>     cvs -z3
>     update -d -P
>     checkout -P
> in your ~/.cvsrc.  The first of these invokes gzip -3 compression for
> all cvs network transfers; that should take care of bandwidth problems.
> The other two make the default handling of subdirectories more
> reasonable.
> 
>             regards, tom lane
> 

Marc G. Fournier                   ICQ#7615664               IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org 
primary: scrappy@hub.org           secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org