From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Russ Allbery To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: cvs (was: Bootstrap failure of gcc-ss-20010409 in ia64) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 23:48:00 -0000 Message-id: References: <200104150520.WAA06280@wilson.cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-04/msg00680.html Jim Wilson 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/ >