Re: Archive pruning

2000-05-16 Thread David Scheidt
On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, David Scheidt wrote: On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, Bush Doctor wrote: Out of da blue David Scheidt aka ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said: Not incidently, SCO have waived the $100 license application fee, which means that you can get your own official Ancient UNIX(TM) Source

Re: Archive pruning

2000-05-16 Thread Narvi
On Tue, 16 May 2000, David Scheidt wrote: On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, David Scheidt wrote: On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, Bush Doctor wrote: Out of da blue David Scheidt aka ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said: Not incidently, SCO have waived the $100 license application fee, which means that you

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-30 Thread gh
For an opinion from a reasonably new-comer and non-developer, I think at least the main source tree should remain *completely* complete. As someone mentioned, why not have "lite" mirrors? Dan K. gh | On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Richard Wackerbarth wrote: | | On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, you wrote: | | I

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-30 Thread Chuck Robey
On Sat, 29 Apr 2000, gh wrote: For an opinion from a reasonably new-comer and non-developer, I think at least the main source tree should remain *completely* complete. As someone mentioned, why not have "lite" mirrors? Oh, for god's sake, PLEASE let this drop! I don't want to insult a

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-30 Thread Neil Blakey-Milner
On Sat 2000-04-29 (20:56), gh wrote: For an opinion from a reasonably new-comer and non-developer, I think at least the main source tree should remain *completely* complete. As someone mentioned, why not have "lite" mirrors? You are welcome to co-ordinate the resources (developer time,

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-28 Thread Brian Dean
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, David O'Brien wrote: I've often traced files back to the begining of FreeBSD time (and then continued in the CSRG SCCS tree). ^^ I've wanted to do this on occasion. Where are these pre-FreeBSD history records available? -Brian -- Brian

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-28 Thread Garrett Wollman
On Fri, 28 Apr 2000 13:17:56 -0400 (EDT), Brian Dean [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: I've wanted to do this on occasion. Where are these pre-FreeBSD history records available? You can buy them on CD-ROM, IIRC. In order to do so, however, you must first take out a SCO ``Historical UNIX Versions''

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-28 Thread David O'Brien
On Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 01:17:56PM -0400, Brian Dean wrote: I've often traced files back to the begining of FreeBSD time (and then continued in the CSRG SCCS tree). I've wanted to do this on occasion. Where are these pre-FreeBSD history records available? Glad you asked.

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-28 Thread David Scheidt
On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, David O'Brien wrote: On Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 01:17:56PM -0400, Brian Dean wrote: I've often traced files back to the begining of FreeBSD time (and then continued in the CSRG SCCS tree). I've wanted to do this on occasion. Where are these pre-FreeBSD history

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-28 Thread Bush Doctor
Out of da blue David Scheidt aka ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said: On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, David O'Brien wrote: On Fri, Apr 28, 2000 at 01:17:56PM -0400, Brian Dean wrote: I've often traced files back to the begining of FreeBSD time (and then continued in the CSRG SCCS tree). I've wanted

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-28 Thread David Scheidt
On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, Bush Doctor wrote: Out of da blue David Scheidt aka ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said: Not incidently, SCO have waived the $100 license application fee, which means that you can get your own official Ancient UNIX(TM) Source Code License for free. This roughly cuts in half

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-28 Thread Bush Doctor
Out of da blue David Scheidt aka ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said: On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, Bush Doctor wrote: Out of da blue David Scheidt aka ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said: Not incidently, SCO have waived the $100 license application fee, which means that you can get your own official Ancient

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-28 Thread Garance A Drosihn
At 1:21 PM -0400 4/28/00, Garrett Wollman wrote: On Fri, 28 Apr 2000 13:17:56 -0400 (EDT), Brian Dean [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: I've wanted to do this on occasion. Where are these pre-FreeBSD history records available? You can buy them on CD-ROM, IIRC. In order to do so, however, you must

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-27 Thread Will Andrews
On Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 08:53:52AM -0700, Frank Mayhar wrote: "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." Richard, for the record, I'd like to point out that the person who said this is not a developer and therefore the backlashing you're getting is not solely from developers. Other people are

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-26 Thread Doug Barton
Richard Wackerbarth wrote: On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Kris Kennaway wrote: On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Richard Wackerbarth wrote: Actually, I didn't start this. Someone else brought up the idea. ...and quickly decided it was not worthwhile. Yes, the developers do a good job of repressing

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-26 Thread Richard Wackerbarth
On Wed, 26 Apr 2000, you wrote: Any further discussion from you on this point that doesn't include code is totally and completely without value. You haven't proven the value of your suggestion to _anyone's_ satisfaction, so no one is going to do it for you. So if you're not willing to

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-26 Thread Brad Knowles
At 2:22 PM -0600 2000/4/25, Nate Williams wrote: I consider you a very small minority. A user who is not a developer, but who could be a developer. The amount of work it would take to support your needs is way too much work, and it would only benefit 1-2% of the user base. Does this

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-26 Thread Brad Knowles
At 1:32 PM -0700 2000/4/25, Matthew Hunt wrote: Maintaining a CVS repository is necessary only if you are working on the code, so your proposal would only affect devlopers, not Joe User. Normal users do not maintain copies of the repository and do not have a frequent need to examine

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-26 Thread Brad Knowles
At 1:36 PM -0700 2000/4/25, Kris Kennaway wrote: Why would "The Project" have to do anything? We've already established this is of minority appeal, Have we? Really? We have established that this is of minority appeal to the people who have spoken up on this mailing list, but

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-26 Thread Matthew Hunt
On Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 12:24:59PM +0200, Brad Knowles wrote: Maintaining a CVS repository is necessary only if you are working on the code, so your proposal would only affect devlopers, not Joe User. Normal users do not maintain copies of the repository and do not have a frequent

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-26 Thread Frank Mayhar
Richard Wackerbarth wrote: You are correct that I "haven't proven" yet. Much of this is because the audience doesn't relate to the problem because they don't see themselves directly impacted by it. However, they are paying for it every time they use cvsup or cvs. "Frankly, my dear, I

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-26 Thread Brad Knowles
At 8:50 AM -0700 2000/4/26, Matthew Hunt wrote: In any case where somebody says "Y'all should do such-and-such" without ponying up the code himself, we should be thinking about whether the benefit to the users will "pay for" the time it takes us to do it. Sounds like a

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-26 Thread Doug Barton
Richard Wackerbarth wrote: On Wed, 26 Apr 2000, you wrote: Any further discussion from you on this point that doesn't include code is totally and completely without value. You are correct that I "haven't proven" yet. . . . I'll sit back and wait... To Unsubscribe: send

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-26 Thread Matthew Hunt
On Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 06:11:23PM +0200, Brad Knowles wrote: I am only guessing, but the way I read the original proposal (which Richard has been advocating much more strongly than the person who originally proposed it) sounded to me like it would benefit anyone and everyone that

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-26 Thread Will Andrews
On Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 12:27:22PM +0200, Brad Knowles wrote: Why would "The Project" have to do anything? We've already established this is of minority appeal, Have we? Really? We have established that this is of minority It seems to me that the typical assumption is that if

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-26 Thread John Baldwin
On 26-Apr-00 Richard Wackerbarth wrote: On Wed, 26 Apr 2000, you wrote: Any further discussion from you on this point that doesn't include code is totally and completely without value. You haven't proven the value of your suggestion to _anyone's_ satisfaction, so no one is going to do

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-26 Thread Richard Wackerbarth
On Wed, 26 Apr 2000, you wrote: *Bzzzt*. Wrong. You only get the old history during the intial cvsup. And since the most recent revisions are stored at the beginning of an RCS file, you don't pay for this on cvs operations except for 'cvs log' and other operations dealing with the

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-26 Thread John Baldwin
On 27-Apr-00 Richard Wackerbarth wrote: On Wed, 26 Apr 2000, you wrote: *Bzzzt*. Wrong. You only get the old history during the intial cvsup. And since the most recent revisions are stored at the beginning of an RCS file, you don't pay for this on cvs operations except for 'cvs log' and

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-25 Thread Doug Barton
Richard Wackerbarth wrote: On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, you wrote: I'd like to add that it can be particularly important when legal questions arise. You confuse the argument for SOME complete repositories with the necessity that ALL (or at each most) repositories be so extensive.

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-25 Thread Doug Barton
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

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-25 Thread Richard Wackerbarth
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, Garrett Wollman wrote: On Mon, 24 Apr 2000 22:09:14 -0500, Richard Wackerbarth [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: You confuse the argument for SOME complete repositories with the necessity that ALL (or at each most) repositories be so extensive. You're welcome to remove whatever

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-25 Thread Nate Williams
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, Nate Williams wrote: I'm violently opposed to removing it completely. The only thing I wouldn't be violently opposed to would be removing 'Attic' files (truly unused file), and having them stored away somewhere in the tree for archival purposes. You realize that

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-25 Thread Richard Wackerbarth
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Nate Williams wrote: No-one needs to grab a repository, unless they're looking at history. Just use CVSup to grab the latest bits, no need to grab the entire history. I find it virtually impossible to work with anything but the most stable without the recent part of the

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-25 Thread Nate Williams
I'd like to add that it can be particularly important when legal questions arise. You confuse the argument for SOME complete repositories with the necessity that ALL (or at each most) repositories be so extensive. No-one needs to grab a repository, unless they're looking at history.

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-25 Thread Kris Kennaway
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Richard Wackerbarth wrote: Actually, it isn't. it can be automated rather easily based on parsing the CVS tags and using RCS primitives. The hard part is to get developers like yourself to recognize that they could refer to a CD for the old parts to the history and

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-25 Thread Richard Wackerbarth
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, you wrote: I told myself I wouldn't get into this debate with you again, Richard, but you're not listening. The vast majority (all? I might have missed one) of the other respondants Actually, I didn't start this. Someone else brought up the idea. P.S. Please don't tell

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-25 Thread Kris Kennaway
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Richard Wackerbarth wrote: Actually, I didn't start this. Someone else brought up the idea. ...and quickly decided it was not worthwhile. The quiet majority that might benefit are not very likely to speak up when they are told some is impossible. After all, they are at

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-25 Thread Nate Williams
No-one needs to grab a repository, unless they're looking at history. Just use CVSup to grab the latest bits, no need to grab the entire history. I find it virtually impossible to work with anything but the most stable without the recent part of the repository because I often have to

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-25 Thread Richard Wackerbarth
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Kris Kennaway wrote: On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Richard Wackerbarth wrote: Actually, I didn't start this. Someone else brought up the idea. ...and quickly decided it was not worthwhile. Yes, the developers do a good job of repressing opinions that differ from their own.

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-25 Thread Matthew Hunt
On Tue, Apr 25, 2000 at 03:10:53PM -0500, Richard Wackerbarth wrote: The quiet majority that might benefit are not very likely to speak up when they are told some is impossible. After all, they are at the mercy of the very developers who oppose change because it does not directly benefit the

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-25 Thread Kris Kennaway
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Richard Wackerbarth wrote: Yes, the developers do a good job of repressing opinions that differ from their own. Thats an interesting revision of the plain facts. And if I put up, will you (the organization) use it? It's certainly too much work to prove the obvious. I

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-25 Thread Matthew Hunt
On Tue, Apr 25, 2000 at 03:30:27PM -0500, Richard Wackerbarth wrote: And if I put up, will you (the organization) use it? It's certainly too much I cannot remember anybody ever having a guarantee that their submission will be incorporated into FreeBSD, code-unseen. That's not how it works.

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-25 Thread Will Andrews
On Tue, Apr 25, 2000 at 03:30:27PM -0500, Richard Wackerbarth wrote: Yes, the developers do a good job of repressing opinions that differ from their own. It should be noted that the person who brought this up was a developer. -- Will Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED] GCS/E/S @d- s+:++:- a---+++ C++

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-25 Thread Richard Wackerbarth
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Matthew Hunt wrote: Maintaining a CVS repository is necessary only if you are working on the code, I disagree. Anyone who attempts to run "-current" on a regular basis needs the recent history to cobble together a working system. It is also very helpful if you are a

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-25 Thread Jordan K. Hubbard
And if I put up, will you (the organization) use it? It's certainly too much work to prove the obvious. I don't have to convince myself of anything. The only value accrues if it gets used. Erm, haven't we been here with you before? I can even replay the script from heart: 1. Richard comes

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-25 Thread Richard Wackerbarth
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: And if I put up, will you (the organization) use it? It's certainly too much work to prove the obvious. I don't have to convince myself of anything. The only value accrues if it gets used. Erm, haven't we been here with you before? I can even

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-25 Thread David Scheidt
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Matthew Hunt wrote: Maintaining a CVS repository is necessary only if you are working on the code, so your proposal would only affect devlopers, not Joe User. Normal users do not maintain copies of the repository and do not have a frequent need to examine history.

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-25 Thread Chuck Robey
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Richard Wackerbarth wrote: On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, you wrote: I told myself I wouldn't get into this debate with you again, Richard, but you're not listening. The vast majority (all? I might have missed one) of the other respondants Actually, I didn't start this.

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-24 Thread Matthew Jacob
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, Chuck Robey wrote: I want to bring up a suggestion. I just want a little bit of argument on it ... and if you're violently opposed, just say so, that's fine. I want to suggest that, once a year, we go thru the cvs archive, and prune away all history more than 3 (or

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-24 Thread David O'Brien
On Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 08:15:45PM -0400, Chuck Robey wrote: I want to bring up a suggestion. I just want a little bit of argument on it ... and if you're violently opposed, just say so, that's fine. I'm "violently opposed". :-) While folks do sometimes go hunting for hugely old materials

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-24 Thread Frank Mayhar
Chuck Robey wrote: I want to bring up a suggestion. I just want a little bit of argument on it ... and if you're violently opposed, just say so, that's fine. Okay: "so." :-) Do we really need 5 year old history? Well, unfortunately (and I speak from painful experience), yes. You never

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-24 Thread Chuck Robey
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, David O'Brien wrote: On Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 08:15:45PM -0400, Chuck Robey wrote: I want to bring up a suggestion. I just want a little bit of argument on it ... and if you're violently opposed, just say so, that's fine. I'm "violently opposed". :-) While

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-24 Thread Alfred Perlstein
* Chuck Robey [EMAIL PROTECTED] [000424 19:15] wrote: I want to bring up a suggestion. I just want a little bit of argument on it ... and if you're violently opposed, just say so, that's fine. I want to suggest that, once a year, we go thru the cvs archive, and prune away all history more

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-24 Thread Richard Wackerbarth
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, Chuck Robey wrote: I want to bring up a suggestion. I just want a little bit of argument on it ... and if you're violently opposed, just say so, that's fine. I want to suggest that, once a year, we go thru the cvs archive, and prune away all history more than 3 (or

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-24 Thread Richard Wackerbarth
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, you wrote: On Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 08:15:45PM -0400, Chuck Robey wrote: I want to bring up a suggestion. I just want a little bit of argument on it ... and if you're violently opposed, just say so, that's fine. I'm "violently opposed". :-) While folks do sometimes

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-24 Thread Garrett Wollman
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000 22:06:42 -0400 (EDT), Chuck Robey [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: OK. Thanks, I wanted some opinions, and I guess I have enough to satisfy me. I'd like to add that it can be particularly important when legal questions arise. Should some submarine patent cover parts of FreeBSD's

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-24 Thread Matthew N. Dodd
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, Chuck Robey wrote: Do we really need 5 year old history? Yes. -- | Matthew N. Dodd | '78 Datsun 280Z | '75 Volvo 164E | FreeBSD/NetBSD | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 2 x '84 Volvo 245DL| ix86,sparc,pmax | | http://www.jurai.net/~winter | This Space For Rent |

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-24 Thread Bill Fumerola
On Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 08:59:46PM -0500, Richard Wackerbarth wrote: Do we really need 5 year old history? a) yes, we need the history. b) do we need it "online everywhere"? I think the answer is "no". However the sandbox engineers think differently. c) I've brought this up more than once.

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-24 Thread Richard Wackerbarth
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, you wrote: I'd like to add that it can be particularly important when legal questions arise. You confuse the argument for SOME complete repositories with the necessity that ALL (or at each most) repositories be so extensive. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-24 Thread Nate Williams
I want to bring up a suggestion. I just want a little bit of argument on it ... and if you're violently opposed, just say so, that's fine. I want to suggest that, once a year, we go thru the cvs archive, and prune away all history more than 3 (or maybe 2, maybe 4) years old. I'm violently

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-24 Thread Bakul Shah
Do we really need 5 year old history? That really depends on your point of view. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" -- Santayana "The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history." -- Hegel I am with Hegel

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-24 Thread Chuck Robey
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, Bakul Shah wrote: Do we really need 5 year old history? That really depends on your point of view. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" -- Santayana "The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-24 Thread Garrett Wollman
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000 22:09:14 -0500, Richard Wackerbarth [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: You confuse the argument for SOME complete repositories with the necessity that ALL (or at each most) repositories be so extensive. You're welcome to remove whatever history you like from your personal copy. It's

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-24 Thread Jon Hamilton
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Richard Wackerbarth wrote } Do we really need 5 year old history? } } Yes. } I don't disagree that we need to maintain the history. } } I do, however, question the policy that REQUIRES EVERYONE to maintain that } much history. I've been following this thread

Re: Archive pruning

2000-04-24 Thread Matthew N. Dodd
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, Nate Williams wrote: I'm violently opposed to removing it completely. The only thing I wouldn't be violently opposed to would be removing 'Attic' files (truly unused file), and having them stored away somewhere in the tree for archival purposes. You realize that its