Jon Hamilton wrote:

> I've been following this thread at some distance for a while, and I
> don't understand your definition of ``everyone''.  Aside from developers,
> who do you feel is a good candidate to track the entire CVS repository, rather
> than using CVSUP or some other method to get only the tree they are
> interested in?  

        This is a good question, and deserves a good answer. From my
experience, you should maintain a cvs repo if you find that you have
lots of local changes to your checked out sources that you would like to
maintain, where "lots" gets defined as enough to justify the cost of
maintaining the repo as opposed to the cost of re-patching your tree
after each cvsup (or other methods). This is of course begging the
obvious answer of, if you're developing for FreeBSD there is no

        Personally, I keep a fairly complete cvs repo, and use it for my source
trees. However, I just switched my ports collections over to use cvsup,
and learned how to set up my own cvsupd in the process just for fun. The
reason being that an update to the ports tree takes about 40 - 50
minutes with cvs, and 8 - 10 with cvsup on my systems. I don't have
enough local changes in my ports tree to justify the expense of time and
inconvenience that the checked out ports tree was costing me. If I want
to submit a patch to the ports tree I can just check out a working copy
and make my patch from that. 

        I hope this is useful information for you. What it boils down to is, if
you're just using the FreeBSD sources as they come, and/or you rarely if
ever generate a patch for submission to the project there's no point in
using cvs, cvsup is faster and easier.

Excess on occasion is exhilarating.  It prevents moderation from
acquiring the deadening effect of a habit.
                -- W. Somerset Maugham

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to