Re: What to do about RCS/OpenRCS

On May 11, 2015 9:21 AM, "Steve Kargl" <sgk_at_troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
wrote:
>
> 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 would soon be outdated.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.

I didn't miss anything. My point is that debating to update one piece of
obsolete software with another is silly, and that FreeBSD should try to
move forward in this area. But that's hard, as your response indicates.

This is the last I'll say about this, because it appears the community
isn't ready. Have fun with your ancient version control while Linux
continues to grow in market share. :-(

Jos

> So, please just stop.
>
> PS: Please reply to the list not directly to me.  CC stored.
>
> --
> Steve