On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 10:38:39AM -0500 or thereabouts, Daniel Ostrow wrote: > And herein I think lies some confusion. Personally if I were an AT both > would be important but more to the point the "more up to date" issue > would be the most important.
I agree -- this was the main point of the original GLEP. > an AT does a > `cvs up` and retests to try and catch *other* errors all within a matter > of *single digit* minutes. I do question the need for "single digit" minutes. 30 minutes may be too much, but I think we could probably live with something in the 10-15 minute range. (if folks disagree, please speak up) > I know this is a far cry from what you are proposing, and I understand > that the present CVS server cannot handle this sort of load but I > believe that this was the original intention at least...someone correct > me if I am wrong. Anything is possible -- it's merely a matter of how much money we want to spend in the process. So far, nobody has really come back and said that using CVS, specifically, is a requirement. So, at this point, all options are on the table, but the main goal is to provide something that is as close to real-time as possible and allows authorized individuals to synchronize far more often than the current public rsync mirrors. All this is for a targeted group of up to ~100 users. Can we agree on these requirements? Are there others that I've left out? If not, we can start working on an implementation plan. --kurt
pgp7WBqBtm1do.pgp
Description: PGP signature
