Is there a CVS target for docs? I don't like the idea to check the whole
source out just to change ecpg.sgml. Yes, I am actively editing some stuff
in this file. :-)

I'd like to commit my changes frequently just to make sure nothing is lost.

Michael
-- 
Michael Meskes                         | Go SF 49ers!
Th.-Heuss-Str. 61, D-41812 Erkelenz    | Go Rhein Fire!
Tel.: (+49) 2431/72651                 | Use Debian GNU/Linux!
Email: Michael.Meskes@gmx.net          | Use PostgreSQL!

Fri, 19 Mar 1999 08:54:57 +0100
Michael Meskes <meskes@postgresql.org>
CVS target for docs
Michael Meskes <meskes@postgreSQL.org> writes:
> Is there a CVS target for docs? I don't like the idea to check the whole
> source out just to change ecpg.sgml.

If you're using cvs it's easy to update any particular subtree of the
distribution.  You do have to do a "cvs checkout pgsql" to populate the
whole tree once, but you don't have to update all of it frequently if
you don't want to --- just do
	cd pgsql/doc
	cvs update
to update everything under the doc subdirectory.

I'm not sure that it's real safe to update just part of the src tree
this way, since there are so often related changes in different parts
of the source.  But it oughta work just fine for tracking the docs
without the source.

AFAIK, CVSup has no comparable facility.

			regards, tom lane

Sat, 20 Mar 1999 11:29:55 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] CVS target for docs 
On Sat, Mar 20, 1999 at 11:29:55AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> If you're using cvs it's easy to update any particular subtree of the
> distribution.  You do have to do a "cvs checkout pgsql" to populate the
> whole tree once, but you don't have to update all of it frequently if
> you don't want to --- just do

It's not that I have problems with the update. Currently I have ecpg checked
out on postgresql.org while working with my old cvsup setup at home. I then
transfer my patch to postgresql.org, apply and commit. 

I'm currently thinking about moving to cvs completely but wonder how much
more network traffic this will cause.

The idea with the docs was just to not checkout the whole source on Marc's
machine. But if I move it home it shouldn't matter.

Michael

-- 
Michael Meskes                         | Go SF 49ers!
Th.-Heuss-Str. 61, D-41812 Erkelenz    | Go Rhein Fire!
Tel.: (+49) 2431/72651                 | Use Debian GNU/Linux!
Email: Michael.Meskes@gmx.net          | Use PostgreSQL!

Sat, 20 Mar 1999 21:10:52 +0100
Michael Meskes <meskes@postgresql.org>
Re: [HACKERS] CVS target for docs
> I'm currently thinking about moving to cvs completely but wonder how much
> more network traffic this will cause.

FWIW, I've been using remote cvs from my home machine and it seems to
work very well, and reasonably speedily.  I ran a "cvs update" on the
Postgres tree just now, while watching hub's CPU load via "top" in
another window.  Elapsed time was 2m 45s, and the server's CPU usage
on hub never got above 3%.  This run only had to pull a couple of files,
since I'd just updated yesterday --- a typical run probably takes more
like 4m or so.  Network bandwidth doesn't seem to be the limiting factor
in an update (to judge from das blinkenlights on my router), though it
is the bottleneck in a full checkout.

If what you're currently doing is cvs or cvsup into a local directory
at hub, then transferring the files to home via tar and ftp, I've got
to think that remote cvs is a vastly more efficient and less error-prone
solution.

BTW, I recommend putting
	cvs -z3
	update -d -P
	checkout -P
in your ~/.cvsrc.  The first of these invokes gzip -3 compression for
all cvs network transfers; that should take care of bandwidth problems.
The other two make the default handling of subdirectories more
reasonable.

			regards, tom lane

Sun, 21 Mar 1999 10:40:28 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] CVS target for docs 
On Fri, 19 Mar 1999, Michael Meskes wrote:

> Is there a CVS target for docs? I don't like the idea to check the whole
> source out just to change ecpg.sgml. Yes, I am actively editing some stuff
> in this file. :-)
> 
> I'd like to commit my changes frequently just to make sure nothing is lost.

cvs checkout -P pgsql-doc

Marc G. Fournier                   ICQ#7615664               IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org 
primary: scrappy@hub.org           secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org 


Sun, 21 Mar 1999 23:39:12 -0400 (AST)
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: [HACKERS] CVS target for docs

Tom, Michael doesn't work on anything else other then docs and ecpg...why
would he want to update everything?

Right now, to get at ecpg, he check's out 'pgsql-ecpg'...and pgsql-doc is
always an available module...

Not sure why such a simple thing needed to be so complicated :(


On Sun, 21 Mar 1999, Tom Lane wrote:

> > I'm currently thinking about moving to cvs completely but wonder how much
> > more network traffic this will cause.
> 
> FWIW, I've been using remote cvs from my home machine and it seems to
> work very well, and reasonably speedily.  I ran a "cvs update" on the
> Postgres tree just now, while watching hub's CPU load via "top" in
> another window.  Elapsed time was 2m 45s, and the server's CPU usage
> on hub never got above 3%.  This run only had to pull a couple of files,
> since I'd just updated yesterday --- a typical run probably takes more
> like 4m or so.  Network bandwidth doesn't seem to be the limiting factor
> in an update (to judge from das blinkenlights on my router), though it
> is the bottleneck in a full checkout.
> 
> If what you're currently doing is cvs or cvsup into a local directory
> at hub, then transferring the files to home via tar and ftp, I've got
> to think that remote cvs is a vastly more efficient and less error-prone
> solution.
> 
> BTW, I recommend putting
> 	cvs -z3
> 	update -d -P
> 	checkout -P
> in your ~/.cvsrc.  The first of these invokes gzip -3 compression for
> all cvs network transfers; that should take care of bandwidth problems.
> The other two make the default handling of subdirectories more
> reasonable.
> 
> 			regards, tom lane
> 

Marc G. Fournier                   ICQ#7615664               IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org 
primary: scrappy@hub.org           secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org 


Sun, 21 Mar 1999 23:40:20 -0400 (AST)
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: [HACKERS] CVS target for docs 
On Sun, Mar 21, 1999 at 11:40:20PM -0400, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> 
> Tom, Michael doesn't work on anything else other then docs and ecpg...why
> would he want to update everything?

In fact I do update everything via cvsup as soon as I go online. Kind of
alpha testing. :-)

> Right now, to get at ecpg, he check's out 'pgsql-ecpg'...and pgsql-doc is
> always an available module...

Thanks Marc.

Michael
-- 
Michael Meskes                         | Go SF 49ers!
Th.-Heuss-Str. 61, D-41812 Erkelenz    | Go Rhein Fire!
Tel.: (+49) 2431/72651                 | Use Debian GNU/Linux!
Email: Michael.Meskes@gmx.net          | Use PostgreSQL!

Mon, 22 Mar 1999 06:56:29 +0100
Michael Meskes <meskes@postgresql.org>
Re: [HACKERS] CVS target for docs
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
> Tom, Michael doesn't work on anything else other then docs and ecpg...why
> would he want to update everything?

So he has an up-to-date backend to test with?  I dunno, maybe he doesn't
need that.

> Right now, to get at ecpg, he check's out 'pgsql-ecpg'...and pgsql-doc is
> always an available module...

I wasn't aware that there were CVS module names for subsets of the
distribution, actually.  Is there a list posted somewhere of all the
available module names?  The FAQ_CVS page probably ought to include
that info.

> Not sure why such a simple thing needed to be so complicated :(

Seems to me that which module he checks out doesn't affect the
complexity of the process much... remote cvs has still gotta be
simpler than using an intermediate staging area on hub.org.

			regards, tom lane

Mon, 22 Mar 1999 10:13:29 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] CVS target for docs 
On Mon, 22 Mar 1999, Tom Lane wrote:

> The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
> > Tom, Michael doesn't work on anything else other then docs and ecpg...why
> > would he want to update everything?
> 
> So he has an up-to-date backend to test with?  I dunno, maybe he doesn't
> need that.
> 
> > Right now, to get at ecpg, he check's out 'pgsql-ecpg'...and pgsql-doc is
> > always an available module...
> 
> I wasn't aware that there were CVS module names for subsets of the
> distribution, actually.  Is there a list posted somewhere of all the
> available module names?  The FAQ_CVS page probably ought to include
> that info.

	cvs checkout CVSROOT/modules

Marc G. Fournier                   ICQ#7615664               IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org 
primary: scrappy@hub.org           secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org 


Mon, 22 Mar 1999 13:12:45 -0400 (AST)
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: [HACKERS] CVS target for docs 