Re: ideas for auto-processing patches

Tino Wildenhain wrote:
> markwkm(at)gmail(dot)com schrieb:
>> On 1/4/07, Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 4 Jan 2007, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> ...
>>> Pulling branches from
>>> anonvcvs regularly might be burdensome bandwidth-wise. So, like you
>>> say, a
>>> local mirror would be beneficial for patch testing.
>>
>> Right some sort of local mirror would definitely speed things up.
>
> Easier speedup in this regard would be using subversion instead
> of cvs. It transfers only diffs to your working copy (or rather,
> to your last checkout) so its really saving on bandwidth.
>

cvs update isn't too bad either. I just did a substantial update on a
tree that had not been touched for nearly 6 months, and ethereal tells
me that total traffic was 7343004 bytes in 7188 packets. Individual
buildfarm updates are going to be much lower than that, by a couple of
orders of magnitude, I suspect.

If we were to switch to subversion we should do it for the right reason
- this isn't one.

cheers

andrew