Re: [TUHS] SCCS

emanuel stiebler wrote in &lt;8db2e89c-ce50-a453-e38a-ecdfe69a746c(a)e-bbes.com&gt;: |On 2019-09-12 19:29, Clem Cole wrote: |> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 1:16 PM Eric Allman &lt;tuhs(a)eric.allman.name |> <mailto:tuhs@eric.allman.name>> wrote: |> |>  At thispoint I'm using git because, well, all the cool kids are |> doing it, and |> since I work at the university I have to go with the flow sometimes. |> And git has some nice properties.  On the other hand, I have \ |> shot myself |> in the foot with git more times than the sum of all other screwups \ |> with |> all other source management systems combined. |> |> eric |> |> +1  | |I have this one on the waqll in the office: |https://xkcd.com/1597/ I for one am so happy to have git that i cannot tell you how much that is. I have used rcs, cvs, subversion, back to cvs, mercurial over the years,, and for some small things also sccs. All of it has been a pain here or there. Yes, the weave. Schily wants to provide real changeset support for sccs (tagging is real problem), i think. No, stashing, simply commiting something half-ready, amending, rebasing, and, very important, proper garbage collection of thrown away or otherwise useless stuff, i will never miss again. The only bad aspects is the lack of an automatically expanded, human readable version number that can be included in files, and that you cannot simply checkout, say, one directory, but only the entire repository. Its capability to work with shallow repositories has improved over the years, however. Nonetheless, i claim that for the maintainer of one or two ports/packages it is much nicer to use cvs, and only check out what really is of interest to you; than to checkout thousands of things that is. A nice weekend from Germany i wish, --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt)