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 d2c3dc08 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 21:51:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 584359BA42; Sat, 14 Sep 2019 07:51:38 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B8BD9B9B5; Sat, 14 Sep 2019 07:51:29 +1000 (AEST) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id D69189B9B5; Sat, 14 Sep 2019 07:51:27 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mcvoy.com (mcvoy.com [192.169.23.250]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A07269B9A9 for ; Sat, 14 Sep 2019 07:51:27 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mcvoy.com (Postfix, from userid 3546) id 45B0535E11A; Fri, 13 Sep 2019 14:51:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 14:51:27 -0700 From: Larry McVoy To: Norman Wilson Message-ID: <20190913215127.GG2046@mcvoy.com> References: <1568410636.21547.for-standards-violators@oclsc.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1568410636.21547.for-standards-violators@oclsc.org> 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@tuhs.org Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 05:37:12PM -0400, Norman Wilson wrote: > The actual basis for that opinion (and it's just my opinion but it's > not pulled out of hyperspace) is that the older systems think only > about one file at a time, not collections of files. Yep. That's the problem that BitKeeper solved first, correctly, with atomic commits, full rename tracking, etc. If you googled "changeset" back in 1996 before BitKeeper started happening there were 6 hits (mostly for a really weird system called Aide De Camp). If you googled it 5 years later there were millions of hits, almost 100% BitKeeper related. One of the selling points of BK back in the day was "remember when you forgot to tag the tree in CVS and you couldn't get back to where you wanted to be? Yeah, every commit in BK is a tag, you can roll back to anywhere." So I agree with you Norm that exact problem was part of why BitKeeper was invented. When I was going on about SCCS, I was admiring the weave, it's a neat way to do things. But I wouldn't suggest anyone use just SCCS today, that's nuts.