From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SUBJ_ALL_CAPS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (minnie.tuhs.org [45.79.103.53]) by inbox.vuxu.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 09d4a37b for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 04:33:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id CEA9394898; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 14:33:21 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C100947C8; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 14:33:10 +1000 (AEST) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 5393094831; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 14:33:09 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mcvoy.com (mcvoy.com [192.169.23.250]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2955C94811 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2019 14:33:09 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mcvoy.com (Postfix, from userid 3546) id D9E9F35E0B5; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 21:33:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2019 21:33:08 -0700 From: Larry McVoy To: Jon Forrest Message-ID: <20190912043308.GL2046@mcvoy.com> References: <20190911181101.GF3143@mcvoy.com> <20190912034346.GJ2046@mcvoy.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Subject: Re: [TUHS] SCCS X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" Yeah, this was one of things that BitKeeper addressed. It was easier to use and every commit was a tag. On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 09:28:25PM -0700, Jon Forrest wrote: > > > I used both RCS and SCCS in the early days (e.g. 1985 - 1991). RCS was > what we used at Britton-Lee in the group that Eric Allman was part of. > SCCS is what we used at Sybase as it was gaining popularity. This was > so long ago that I don't remember all the details but I found that > RCS was much easier to use, especially in an environment that didn't > do much merging. Instead we used labels (or tags, I forget what they > were called) to mark which files were part of which release. Doing > this was much harder in SCCS, which contributed to the mess that > was Sybase software engineering. > > Of course, all this could be explained by Eric's deep knowledge > of RCS, and the lack of somebody with Eric's knowledge at Sybase. > But, to me, an early adopter of source code control who wasn't > overly interested in speed, RCS was much easier to use. > > Jon -- --- Larry McVoy lm at mcvoy.com http://www.mcvoy.com/lm