13 Dec
2024
13 Dec
'24
11:58 p.m.
On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 10:03 AM Mark Seiden <mseiden(a)gmail.com> wrote:
(I know there is a special place in hell for those who
explain a joke,
but, you asked…)
it’s just an allusion to the Black Flag Roach Motel product (still being
produced)
which has a trademark on the phrase “Roaches Check in… But they Don’t
Check Out”.
Yeah, I knew that much. My question to Ken was about what this was saying
about
SCCS.
Marc
14 Dec
14 Dec
3:09 a.m.
New subject: SCCS roach motel
On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 3:28 PM Marc Rochkind <mrochkind(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 10:03 AM Mark Seiden
<mseiden(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I had heard a story once, that based on what you wrote today, I now
think is apocryphal and never actually happened.
The story was that there was a bug in early SCCS where a source file
had to be checked in twice before it could be (successfully) checked
out. The bug was such that if one only checked it in once and tried to
check it out, it would truncate the file. "Programmers using it just
learned to check in twice."
I never used SCCS extensively, and certainly never observed that
behavior, so chucked it up to the bug having been long fixed. As I
mentioned above, I doubt it was ever there to begin with. A fun story,
though.
- Dan C.
(I know there is a special place in hell for
those who explain a joke, but, you asked…)
it’s just an allusion to the Black Flag Roach Motel product (still being produced)
which has a trademark on the phrase “Roaches Check in… But they Don’t Check Out”.
Yeah, I knew that much. My question to Ken was about what this was saying about SCCS.
7:11 a.m.
New subject: SCCS roach motel
On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 2:10 PM Dan Cross <crossd(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I had heard a story once, that based on what you wrote today, I now
think is apocryphal and never actually happened.
The story was that there was a bug in early SCCS where a source file
had to be checked in twice before it could be (successfully) checked
out. The bug was such that if one only checked it in once and tried to
check it out, it would truncate the file. "Programmers using it just
learned to check in twice."
I never used SCCS extensively, and certainly never observed that
behavior, so chucked it up to the bug having been long fixed. As I
mentioned above, I doubt it was ever there to begin with. A fun story,
though.
- Dan C.
This is completely ridiculous. No program I wrote ever had one of those bug
things.
Marc
7:27 a.m.
New subject: SCCS roach motel
On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 8:12 PM Marc Rochkind <mrochkind(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 2:10 PM Dan Cross
<crossd(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Oh dear, I do hope no offense was taken. As I said, I firmly believe
the story was apocryphal.
The identity of the person from whom I heard it is probably known to
at least some of the USENIX old school crew; I rather thought at the
time they were under the impression that SCCS was the result of a
large team, or perhaps some kind of fork.
Anyway, I don't mean to belabor the point. Please accept my apologies
if the story rubbed you the wrong way.
- Dan C.
I had heard a story once, that based on what you
wrote today, I now
think is apocryphal and never actually happened.
The story was that there was a bug in early SCCS where a source file
had to be checked in twice before it could be (successfully) checked
out. The bug was such that if one only checked it in once and tried to
check it out, it would truncate the file. "Programmers using it just
learned to check in twice."
I never used SCCS extensively, and certainly never observed that
behavior, so chucked it up to the bug having been long fixed. As I
mentioned above, I doubt it was ever there to begin with. A fun story,
though.
This is completely ridiculous. No program I wrote ever had one of those bug things.
7:39 a.m.
New subject: SCCS roach motel
On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 08:27:54PM -0500, Dan Cross wrote:
On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 8:12???PM Marc Rochkind
<mrochkind(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I'm 90% sure Marc was joking, I got it.
On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 2:10???PM Dan Cross
<crossd(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Oh dear, I do hope no offense was taken. As I said, I firmly believe
the story was apocryphal.
The identity of the person from whom I heard it is probably known to
at least some of the USENIX old school crew; I rather thought at the
time they were under the impression that SCCS was the result of a
large team, or perhaps some kind of fork.
Anyway, I don't mean to belabor the point. Please accept my apologies
if the story rubbed you the wrong way. I had heard a story once, that based on what you
wrote today, I now
think is apocryphal and never actually happened.
The story was that there was a bug in early SCCS where a source file
had to be checked in twice before it could be (successfully) checked
out. The bug was such that if one only checked it in once and tried to
check it out, it would truncate the file. "Programmers using it just
learned to check in twice."
I never used SCCS extensively, and certainly never observed that
behavior, so chucked it up to the bug having been long fixed. As I
mentioned above, I doubt it was ever there to begin with. A fun story,
though.
This is completely ridiculous. No program I wrote ever had one of those bug things.
12:20 p.m.
New subject: SCCS roach motel
That was a joke, Dan.
I've been programming for 58 years, and nobody has put in more bugs than
me, I'm sure.
Marc
On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 6:28 PM Dan Cross <crossd(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 8:12 PM Marc Rochkind
<mrochkind(a)gmail.com> wrote:
--
*My new email address is mrochkind(a)gmail.com <mrochkind(a)gmail.com>*
On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 2:10 PM Dan Cross
<crossd(a)gmail.com> wrote:
bug
things.
Oh dear, I do hope no offense was taken. As I said, I firmly believe
the story was apocryphal.
The identity of the person from whom I heard it is probably known to
at least some of the USENIX old school crew; I rather thought at the
time they were under the impression that SCCS was the result of a
large team, or perhaps some kind of fork.
Anyway, I don't mean to belabor the point. Please accept my apologies
if the story rubbed you the wrong way.
- Dan C.
I had heard a story once, that based on what you
wrote today, I now
think is apocryphal and never actually happened.
The story was that there was a bug in early SCCS where a source file
had to be checked in twice before it could be (successfully) checked
out. The bug was such that if one only checked it in once and tried to
check it out, it would truncate the file. "Programmers using it just
learned to check in twice."
I never used SCCS extensively, and certainly never observed that
behavior, so chucked it up to the bug having been long fixed. As I
mentioned above, I doubt it was ever there to begin with. A fun story,
though.
This is completely ridiculous. No program I wrote ever had one of those
7:38 a.m.
New subject: SCCS roach motel
On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 06:11:57PM -0700, Marc Rochkind wrote:
On Fri, Dec 13, 2024 at 2:10???PM Dan Cross
<crossd(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Heh. Me too, bug? What's that?
BTW, this thread, Marc, has had me wandering into the BitKeeper code
over and over, and while I'm done with coding, it was super pleasant to
go look at that code. We didn't win but we wrote really nice C. I'm
proud of that, it's an old guy thing, it's nice to look back and see
we did a good job.
I had heard a story once, that based on what you wrote today, I now
think is apocryphal and never actually happened.
The story was that there was a bug in early SCCS where a source file
had to be checked in twice before it could be (successfully) checked
out. The bug was such that if one only checked it in once and tried to
check it out, it would truncate the file. "Programmers using it just
learned to check in twice."
I never used SCCS extensively, and certainly never observed that
behavior, so chucked it up to the bug having been long fixed. As I
mentioned above, I doubt it was ever there to begin with. A fun story,
though.
- Dan C.
This is completely ridiculous. No program I wrote ever had one of those bug
things.
7
days inactive
8
days old
6 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Dan Cross -
Larry McVoy -
Marc Rochkind