From: norman@oclsc.org (Norman Wilson)
Subject: [TUHS] Claim your early Unix contributions on GitHub
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 14:28:35 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1459362519.18225.for-standards-violators@oclsc.org> (raw)
Marc Rochkind:
BSD is the new kind on the block. I don't think it came along until 1977 or
so. Research UNIX I don't think picked up SCCS ever. SCCS first appeared in
the PWB releases, if you don't count the earlier version in SNOBOL4 for the
IBM mainframes.
=====
Correct. We never needed no stinkin' revision control in Research.
More fairly, early systems like SCCS were so cumbersome that a
community that was fairly small, in which everyone talked to
everyone, and in which there was no glaring need wasn't willing
to adopt them.
I remember trying SCCS for a few small personal projects back in
1979 or so (well before I moved to New Jersey), finding it just
too clunky for the benefits it gave me, and giving up. Much later,
I found RCS just as messy. One thing that really bugged me was
those systems' inherent belief that you rarely want to keep a
checked-out copy of something except while you're working on it.
Another, harder to work around, is that in any nontrivial project
there are often stages when I want to make changes of scope broader
than a single file: factor common stuff out into a new file, merge
things into a single file, rename files, etc.
CVS was a big step forward, but not enough. Subversion was the
first revision-control that didn't feel like a huge burden to me.
None of which is to say that SCCS and RCS were useless; they were
important pioneers, and for the big projects that originally
spawned them I'm sure they were indispensible. But I can't imagine
Ken or Dennis putting up with them for very long, and I'm glad I
never had to.
Norman Wilson
Toronto ON
next reply other threads:[~2016-03-30 18:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-03-30 18:28 Norman Wilson [this message]
2016-03-30 20:06 ` Ronald Natalie
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2016-03-30 7:53 Diomidis Spinellis
2016-03-30 12:31 ` Joerg Schilling
2016-03-30 13:10 ` Diomidis Spinellis
2016-03-30 13:44 ` Joerg Schilling
2016-03-30 19:17 ` Larry McVoy
2016-03-30 21:07 ` Random832
2016-03-30 23:03 ` Joerg Schilling
2016-03-31 3:20 ` Larry McVoy
2016-03-31 3:34 ` Random832
2016-03-31 3:40 ` Larry McVoy
2016-03-30 23:42 ` Joerg Schilling
2016-03-31 3:54 ` Larry McVoy
2016-03-30 14:25 ` Marc Rochkind
2016-03-30 15:23 ` Joerg Schilling
2016-03-30 19:14 ` Larry McVoy
2016-03-30 15:49 ` Diomidis Spinellis
2016-03-30 16:07 ` Joerg Schilling
2016-03-30 16:29 ` Diomidis Spinellis
2016-03-30 16:14 ` Pat Barron
2016-03-31 21:06 ` Clem Cole
2016-03-31 21:54 ` Ron Natalie
2016-04-01 9:01 ` Diomidis Spinellis
2016-04-01 14:41 ` Clem Cole
2016-04-01 21:00 ` Jeremy C. Reed
2016-04-01 13:06 ` Dave Horsfall
2016-04-01 21:52 ` Pat Barron
2016-03-30 16:30 ` Marc Rochkind
2016-03-30 16:40 ` Joerg Schilling
2016-03-30 16:55 ` John Cowan
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1459362519.18225.for-standards-violators@oclsc.org \
--to=norman@oclsc.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).