Re: rcs

On Oct 8, 2013 1:37 PM, "Cy Schubert" <Cy.Schubert_at_komquats.com> wrote:
>
> In message
<CAETOPp0imH3LCM2gwe1a_TJD+q5YoWhuJbR0YhHpux0qe8irtA_at_mail.gmail.c
> om>
> , Jos Backus writes:
> > On Oct 7, 2013 7:31 PM, "Lyndon Nerenberg" <lyndon_at_orthanc.ca> wrote:
> > >
> > > Okay folks, can we make a call about keeping the RCS tools in the
base?
> > >
> > > The proponents wanting to remove RCS need to speak up and make their
> > technical case.
> >
> > Perhaps slightly off-topic, but how about we move into the 21st century
and
> > import the 2-clause BSD-licensed Fossil?
> >
> > http://www.fossil-scm.org/
> >
> > Not RCS, I know, but vastly more useful.
>
> Bikeshed alert. Let's not let this discussion go sideways.
>
> Seriously, it's not the same. To import something different doesn't
replace
> what was removed. We have two options. Put it back, or something like it,
> e.g. OpenRCS, back, or put it in ports. Personally I don't think it
matters
> where it lives as long as the same functionality is there.

Part of the argument seems to be about improving out of the box
functionality and experience. Fossil would help there. But I agree, change
is hard, and it has a cost for sure.

Sorry for the distraction.

Jos