Re: rcs

On Oct 10, 2013 1:07 PM, "Igor Mozolevsky" <igor_at_hybrid-lab.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On 10 October 2013 20:36, Jos Backus <jos_at_catnook.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Oct 10, 2013 11:54 AM, "Igor Mozolevsky" <igor_at_hybrid-lab.co.uk>
wrote:
>> >
>> > On 10 October 2013 19:15, Jos Backus <jos_at_catnook.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Oct 10, 2013 9:38 AM, "Julian Elischer" <julian_at_freebsd.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > [snip]
>> >
>> >>
>> >> > well since people expect RCS.. it is not a no brainer.
>> >> > you are asking people to learn  a whole new tool  for functionality
that
>> >> is currently very simple..
>> >> > edit file
>> >> > ci -l file
>> >> >     add comment.
>> >>
>> >> Such is the price of progress. I envy people who don't have to learn
>> >> anything new in order to stay employed  :-)
>> >
>> >
>> > So your definition of progress is "doing more work to achieve the same
result"?..
>>
>> That would only be true if they were equivalent, and we didn't care
about the extra features. You may not, but many people do, as the
popularity of git and other distributed version control systems proves.
>
>
> You're missing the point- the requirement is "provide a way to keep track
of changes for file X" not "have many fancy and unnecessary features"...

That may have been the requirement at the time of the RCS import but the
world has changed in my view. Feel free to use the old tools though, nobody
is saying you can't.

Anyway, why not change this for 11? Do we feel RCS is superior simply
because we are familiar with it? What about all the extra features modern
version control offers? Sounds like people think it's all a step backwards,
all we need is manage separate files. No need for changesets or any other
modern features.

I don't really understand the resistance. We're okay with importing
Subversion which has less functionally and more dependencies but a single
Fossil binary is too intrusive?

Jos

>
> --
> Igor M.