next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects Hi Chris, Andrew and all, The last time this issue came up (a few months ago) the editors and / or the IP committee were anything but unanimous about their desires on this topic. As I recall, there were some suggestions made as to a resolution of the issue, but it was not clear to me whether that was acceptable or not. If the IP committee and the editors wish the technical committee to take this on without further input, we will put it back on the agenda. On the other hand, if you wish some say in the resulting method, please organize a discussion of your wishes and the pros and cons, so that we don't leave anything important out. Please bear in mind that we don't necessarily need to apply the same solution across the board, but unnecessary complexity makes it harder to use, harder to manage, and easier to break. Might I suggest a search of the archives for where we left off? When we have some current collected data and preferences, then the technical committee can try to come up with a proposal for revision, that meets the technical needs as well as the operational preferences. Ed Dyer aa146@chebucto.ca Technical Director Chebucto Community Network http://www.chebucto.ca Halifax NS Canada On Fri, 13 Apr 2001, Christopher Majka wrote: > Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 21:02:15 -0300 (ADT) > From: Christopher Majka <nextug@is.dal.ca> > To: CCN Technical Committee <ccn-tech@chebucto.ns.ca> > Cc: CCN Editors <editors@chebucto.ns.ca>, > CCN Office <office@chebucto.ns.ca> > Subject: Re: RCS System of Files (fwd) > > Hi all, > > Good points. Perhaps someone from the technical committee could summarize > the remaining needs for RCS. Could editors still do on-line editing of > documents with PICO without RCS? The locking function to stop simultaneous > editing by two IP editors would seem to be a very infreqent necessity for > all this overhead. Are there any other needs for RCS that couldn't be > otherwise handled? Could we implement an RCS-free option or some tool to > rapidly remove RCS files for those whom (like NGB) this proves to be a > problem? > > Cheers, > > Chris > > On Fri, 13 Apr 2001, Andrew D. Wright wrote: > > > > > After substantial weeding out of RCS files by the editors, RCS > > files still occupy one third of the NGB web space usage. > > > > If the Technical Committee is reluctant to remove RCS from the IP > > directories then it should provide an RCS-free alternative, or as > > suggested here, a tool to remove the RCS files as generated. > > > > It is worth noting that RCS is causing this IP editor substantial > > annoyance and there is no compensatory benefit to him at all. > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 11:12:29 -0700 > > From: Don Tate <dtate03@cfl.rr.com> > > To: office@chebucto.ns.ca > > Subject: RCS System of Files > > > > To whom it may concern: > > > > I would like to ask why there is a necessity for such a large amount of > > disk space used on our site (And I presume all other sites) by the > > storage of RCS files. > > > > A recent check on our site showed that there were approximately 100MB of > > file information and over 150MB of RCS files. In an attempt to keep > > these files at a minumum we attempt to do a complete removal of all RCS > > files on the site once per month. A local backup of all our files is > > also accomplished once per month. > > > > Questions: > > > > 1. Do these files fill a requirement important enough to justify the use > > of such large amounts of disk space? > > > > 2. If they do, then can a CGI script or other method be created to > > assist the local webmaster of sites hosted by you to be able to quickly > > clean out and erase these files periodically? > > > > Presently, it takes several hours to completetely go through the site > > and manually remove these files, directory by directory. > > > > Also it should be noted that these RCS directories multiply into > > multiple sub-levels, thus multiplying the disk space requirement much > > more than a single backup of original files woluld take. > > > > Thank you for your consideration. > > > > PS: > > > > The helpfulness and assistance of the personnel in your organiztion has > > been sincerely appreciated, they are great to work with. > > > > Don Tate > > Webmaster > > NGB Site > > > > >
next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects