[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-devel
Subject:    RE: New CVSup mirror
From:       "Milo Hyson" <milo () cyberlifelabs ! com>
Date:       2001-06-21 1:07:49
[Download RAW message or body]

My experience is that both are about the same in terms of network
efficiency, but CVSup is a significantly bigger CPU hog. In any case, I've
set up both so take your pick.

- Milo Hyson
CyberLife Labs, LLC

-----Original Message-----
From: kde-devel-admin@master.kde.org
[mailto:kde-devel-admin@master.kde.org]On Behalf Of Waldo Bastian
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 3:09 PM
To: kde-devel@kde.org
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli
Subject: Re: New CVSup mirror


>       Hostname:    kde.cyberlifelabs.com
>       Location:    Northern California, USA
>       Contact:     Milo Hyson (milo@cyberlifelabs.com)
>       Max Clients: 50

On Wednesday 20 June 2001 08:39 am, David Faure wrote:
> PS: maybe you could provide anoncvs access with the same server ?
> I don't know what users think, but IMHO anoncvs is much nicer than cvsup

I do, I do, I do know what users think. Cause one of them complained last
week about cvsup not working and he said that cvsup worked much more
efficient than anoncvs for his slow link so he rather used cvsup if that was
possible.

I'm afraid he just switched over to anonvcvs though.

Cheers,
Waldo
--
bastian@kde.org | SuSE Labs KDE Developer | bastian@suse.com

>> Visit http://master.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to
unsubscribe <<

 
>> Visit http://master.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]