cvs (was: Bootstrap failure of gcc-ss-20010409 in ia64)

[Russ Allbery]

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/ >