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
