6 messages in org.freebsd.freebsd-portsRe: requesting enhancements to addpor...| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Mikhail Teterin | Apr 18, 2001 6:08 am | |
| Will Andrews | Apr 18, 2001 8:23 am | |
| mi...@aldan.algebra.com | Apr 18, 2001 9:18 am | |
| Maxim Sobolev | Apr 18, 2001 9:52 am | |
| mi...@aldan.algebra.com | Apr 18, 2001 10:24 am | |
| Will Andrews | Apr 18, 2001 1:29 pm |
| Subject: | Re: requesting enhancements to addport :) | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Maxim Sobolev (sobo...@FreeBSD.org) | |
| Date: | Apr 18, 2001 9:52:06 am | |
| List: | org.freebsd.freebsd-ports | |
mi...@aldan.algebra.com wrote:
On 18 Apr, Will Andrews wrote: = On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 09:08:53AM -0400, Mikhail Teterin wrote: = > 1. Making the port addition and module list modification in a single = > commit (transaction). = = That will tax most people's Internet connections needlessly.
Compare the taxation of the single committer during the commit with the taxing brought by an extra e-mail message to cvs sent to all subscribers.
Well, gziped CVSROOT/modules currently is 55KB long (transfer size is 110KB, because file have to be transferred to and then from client), so dialup committers would kill you.... In addition, it would greatly increase possibility of stale lock on CVSROOT/modules (Bad Thing, BTW) due to dualup going down in the middle of transfer.
In addition to the simple database management consideration: all pieces of a transaction should be committed at once -- to simplify logging and roll-back, and ensure consistency...
I'm objecting to this. In addition to a valid arguments supplied by the Will and my arguments above in your scheme cvs history of CVSROOT/modules will be bloated with unnecessary description of each port added.
-Maxim
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majo...@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message