This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: cvs (was: Bootstrap failure of gcc-ss-20010409 in ia64)
- To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Subject: Re: cvs (was: Bootstrap failure of gcc-ss-20010409 in ia64)
- From: Russ Allbery <rra at stanford dot edu>
- Date: 14 Apr 2001 23:48:20 -0700
- Organization: The Eyrie
- References: <200104150520.WAA06280@wilson.cygnus.com>
Jim Wilson <wilson@cygnus.com> writes:
> Neither problem exists if you use co instead of update. Thus it is
> always better to use co instead of update -d.
Last time I tried this, cvs co always sent the entire file across the
connection, while cvs update knew how to generate a patch and send that
instead if the changes were small or the file large. Thus there was an
advantage to using update instead of co if update wouldn't cause problems.
I don't know if this is still the case, though. I'd need to experiment
further.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>