Re: rcs

On Oct 10, 2013 2:20 PM, "Igor Mozolevsky" <igor_at_hybrid-lab.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 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!

Like I said, change is hard. I'm not going to argue this any further, you
clearly have no interest in using better tools. Fine.

>> 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?..

To replace RCS. But you're not interested, so I'll stop here. I have enough
trouble with Luddites at $work :-)

Jos

> --
> Igor M.