On Apr 18, 2024, at 9:11 AM, Paul Lalonde <paul.a.lalonde@gmail.com> wrote:

The Bell Labs approach to source control was, I'm, weak.  It relied on snapshots of the tree and out-of-band communication.  Don't forget how small and tight-knit that development team was, and how valuable perfect historic snapshots were.

Add that 40 years ago source code revision control systems were incredibly primitive.  The idea of an atomic change set (in Unix land at least) was revolutionary in the early 90s.

This is one place where 35 years of evolution in software practices has very much improved.

Paul

On Thu, Apr 18, 2024, 8:55 a.m. certanan via 9fans <9fans@9fans.net> wrote:

Hi,

is there any more "organic/natural" way to do source control on today's Plan9 (9front specifically), other than Ori's Git?

In other words, how (if at all) did people at Bell Labs and the community alike originally manage their contributions in a way that would allow them to create patches without much hassle?

Was it as simple as backing a source tree up, making some changes, and then comparing the two? Venti? Replica?


tom

------------------------------------------
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tab2715b0e6f3e0a5-M3ad4cc51ed9aebb728fe83f8
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription