On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 09:12:57AM -0700, Jos Backus wrote: >On May 11, 2015 9:10 AM, "Steve Kargl" <sgk_at_troutmask.apl.washington.edu> > wrote: >> >> On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 08:43:06AM -0700, Jos Backus wrote: >>> On May 11, 2015 2:31 AM, "Lars Engels" <lars.engels_at_0x20.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Sat, May 09, 2015 at 11:27:57AM -0700, Jos Backus wrote: >>>>> Maybe off-topic, but functionality-wise it might make >>>>> much more sense to import Fossil. RCS has too many limitations >>>>> this day and age when better >>>>> tools are available. Of course, this would require people to learn >>>>> something new, which I know can be a challenge. >>>> >>>> I really like fossil. But it's still under development, so it >>>> would soon be outdated. It's better installed from ports/packages. >>> >>> It seems OpenRCS is still under development ;-p It's better >>> installed from ports/packages, too. >>> >>> It would give Fossil a recognition boost as a BSD-licensed DVCS. >>> >> >> Please, just stop. Thanks. > > Like I said, a challenge. > You've completely missed the point. OpenRCS is intended to replace ancient GNU RCS, which is already included in the base system and used by a few scripts. Fossil is not a drop-in replacement for the rcs utilities. So, please just stop. PS: Please reply to the list not directly to me. CC stored. -- SteveReceived on Mon May 11 2015 - 14:21:23 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:57 UTC