2007/5/28, Christian Weisgerber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Landry Breuil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I was wondering if some people already had the idea of setting some kind > of > > 'pull-only-changed' model for cvs update. > > I know available methods (cvssync, anoncvs and cvsup) are full > pull-model, > > where we compare the full local cvs copy with the whole remote > repository, > > No. CVSync and CVSup only send a meta data summary to the server, the > server compares this against its own database and only sends diffs of > the changes back to the client. > > > which is : > > - time and network consuming for the user > > - bandwidth and load consuming for the server > > It really isn't. And any well-configured CVSync or CVSup server > keeps a meta data summary in a "scan file" around, so it just needs > to compare this with the summary sent by the client and _not_ go > and stat() every file.
Ok, i see now. AnonCVS is a different story. CVS remote checkout was not designed > as a mirroring tool and is horrendously inefficient in every respect. Yes, i was having the impression that using AnonCVS was terribly slow and resource-consuming.. updating the ports-tree take 5-10mns. So, way better using cvsync or cvsup/csup. I suppose CTM has been deprecated ? It disappeared from the 'official methods' three years ago, page is still here but snaps/diffs are not generated since two years... i haven't found an 'official support drop'. > What methods guys are you using ? > > Use CVSync or CVSup to update a local repository copy, which is > fast and bandwidth-efficient, and run local cvs update from that > local repository. > > Alternatively, if you have no use for the repository, use CVSup (or > the CSup client) in checkout mode. I'm regularly updating ports i'm working on, that's why i was asking if it was possible to update _only_ modified parts of the tree instead of comparing the whole tree. using AnonCVS was my mistake :) No comments on my initial idea ? I suppose i'll implement it 'for fun' and may submit it here someday, if ppl are interested. Thanks for the clarification, Landry
