Re: rcs

On 10 October 2013 21:18, Jos Backus <jos_at_catnook.com> wrote:

>
> On Oct 10, 2013 1:07 PM, "Igor Mozolevsky" <igor_at_hybrid-lab.co.uk> wrote:
> >
>
[snip]

> > 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.
>

RCS is a tool that does it's job. It's been in base since time immemoriam,
and is more likely than not to be found in other flavours of Unix(TM).
Moreover, RCS commands are integrated into a lot of scripts that sysadmins
use (it'd be naive to think otherwise), so in terms of $$$ not having RCS
in base (yup, I know the change's been reverted) has a real cost to
business!

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?
>

SVN is the necessary evil, the project uses it and until the project
switches to something else we're "stuck with it". What's the case for
Fossil?..

-- 
Igor M.